Tag Archives: Konstantinos Alexandris Polomarkakis

December’s European Council meeting: No country for Social Europe

By Mr Konstantinos Alexandris Polomarkakis, PhD Candidate and Teaching Assistant (University of Bristol Law School).

customtileThe European Council is among, if not the most important of, the pivotal institutions of the EU, mapping out its direction for the near term. Its meetings act as the wayfinding system for the EU policies that are to be drafted and discussed in the coming months, affecting crucial issues that have been considered by the Member States’ leaders as pertaining to the Union’s top priorities. It sets the tone that the Member States as well as the rest of the EU institutions should follow.

In that regard, the latest European Council meeting in Brussels on December 15 touched upon the most pressing issues Europe is faced with at the moment. Managing migration flows and the Union’s asylum policy, ensuring an effective application of the EU-Turkey statement, deepening the common European security and defence policy while at the same time complementing the pertinent NATO mechanisms, the negotiation process on a settlement for Cyprus, as well as the future of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement in the aftermath of the Dutch referendum in April, and the situation in Syria, all were at the spotlight of the summit. Even Brexit was dealt with by the means of a declaration following an informal meeting of the EU27.

On top of these issues, a whole section of the meeting’s conclusions was dedicated to what was designated as ‘economic and social development, youth’. This is, at first glance, a welcome addition, considering the uncomfortable position the EU is currently sitting at, with high levels of discontent, and, consequently detachment from the European project by its citizens, manifested in the recent public opinion polls and the rise of –primarily far-right- populism in its territory.  Social Europe could be a vehicle, which if employed effectively, has the potential to revive the long-lost interest towards and engagement with the EU. Continue reading

Same old, same old: The European Court of Justice’s fixation with the Plaumann test for individual concern

By Mr Konstantinos Alexandris Polomarkakis, Graduate Teaching Assistant and PhD Candidate (University of Bristol Law School).

© Trevor Parker

© Trevor Parker

In its Judgment in Ackermann Saatzucht and Others v Parliament and Council, joined Cases C-408/15 P and C-409/15 P, EU:C:2016:893, the European Court of Justice was given yet another chance to set out its position on the admissibility criteria, and more specifically on that of individual concern, for individuals to bring an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

This Judgment follows its recent rulings in T&L Sugars (C-456/13 P), Stichting Woonpunt (C-132/12 P), Stichting Woonlinie (C-133/12 P), Telefónica (C-274/12 P) and Inuit (C-583/11 P). The cases at hand were decided by the ECJ on appeal, lodged by two groups of German and Dutch operators active in the field of plant breeding, following the rejection by two orders of the General Court (in cases T-559/14 and T-560/14) of their  annulment actions against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2013 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables into the EU’s internal market.

The annulment of the said regulation was sought on the basis of it being incompatible with the content of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. These laid down the breeders’ exemption granting plant breeders unrestricted access to protected varieties without a duty to disclose any information, something that was allegedly hampered by the entry into force of Article 4(3) of Regulation 511/13, which bestowed upon them an obligation of disclosure. Nonetheless, the said operators’ actions for annulment were dismissed by the General Court as inadmissible due to the lack of individual concern. In their appeal to the ECJ, they contested this finding, pleaded that the Regulation runs counter to higher ranking rules, and, also, claimed that because of the inadmissibility of their action, their right to effective judicial protection has been impinged. Continue reading