The intensity of judicial review in complex economic matters—recent competition law judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU

Domstolsprøving i konkurransesaker

“…EU-domstolen har likevel unnlatt å foreta en full prøving ved såkalte «complex economic matters». 23 Underretten har formulert dette slik at «it is not for the Court to substitute its own economic assessment for that of the institution which adopted the decision». 24 Dette utgangspunktet ble etablert allerede i Remia, og Domstolen formulerte seg slik at ettersom Kommisjonen «has to appraise complex economic matters», «[t]he Court must therefore limit its review of such an appraisal to verifying whether the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the statement of the reasons for the decision is adequate, whether the facts have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers».…”

Intensity of Judicial Review of the European Central Banks’s Supervisory Decisions

“…The question of the intensity of the judicial scrutiny on the power of appraisal and on the complex technical assessments falling within the remit of EU administrative bodies has been widely debated by EU legal scholars (in particular, Craig, 2018, ch. 15;Schwarze, 2006;Baran, 2017;Fritzsche, 2010), especially with regard to the Court of Justice's review of European Commission decisions in matters of competition and state aid (da Cruz Vilaça, 2018;Derenne and Merola, 2012;Bailey, 2004;Kalintiri, 2016).…”

Kelios pastabos dėl Sąjungos teisėjo atliekamos teisminės kontrolės apimties

“…In one of such cases, 9 the Court of Justice has considered that the European Parliament has made its political choice by conferring on the European Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) the power to adopt an implementing act pursuant to Article 291 TFEU, and not a delegated act on the basis of Article 290 TFEU. 10 The Court of Justice has noted that the EU legislature enjoys discretion when it decides to confer a delegated or implementing power on the Commission. Therefore, the Court of Justice limited its review only to the assessment of manifest errors, and as manifest errors of this type had not been identified, the action had to be dismissed.…”

“…Therefore, the Court of Justice limited its review only to the assessment of manifest errors, and as manifest errors of this type had not been identified, the action had to be dismissed. 7 10 To be precise about the circumstances of the latter case, the Commission sought the annulment of Article 80(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ L 167, 2012, p. 1), in so far as Article 80(1) provided for the adoption of measures setting the fees payable to the European Chemicals Agency by an act based on Article 291(2) TFEU (hereinafter referred to as the "implementing act"), and not by an act adopted under Article 290(1) TFEU (hereinafter referred to as the "delegated act"). The Court of Justice has stated that when the EU legislature confers, in a legislative act, a delegated power on the Commission pursuant to Article 290(1) TFEU, the Commission is called on to adopt rules which supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of that act.…”