Locus standi of non-privileged applicants to bring an action for annulment Abstract Every developed legal system is bound to have a mechanism for checking the procedural and substantive legality of measures adopted by its institutions. In the European Union it was of significant importance to create a system of control over the acts of the EU institutions given the democratic deficit within the Union and the limited supervisory role of the European Parliament. Binding acts of the EU institutions are subject to review through a number of routes provided by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), namely action for annulment (Art. 263 TFEU), the plea of illegality (Art. 277 TFEU), the preliminary reference (Art. 267 TFEU) and the action for damages (Arts. 268 and 340 TFEU). The Court has consistently endeavoured to treat the several strands as a complex and coherent system of judicial review within the Union based on the rule of law. The action for annulment under Art. 263 TFEU plays a crucial role for individuals as it is in practice the only direct way open to individuals to challenge the acts of EU institutions. The main purpose of my thesis is to examine whether the current wording of Art. 263(4) TFEU provides for individuals a sufficiently...

Magistro darbe nagrinėjama Europos Bendrijos teisės aktų teisėtumo priežiūros tema. Jos svarbą lemia ta aplinkybė, kad EB institucijos yra įpareigotos priimti tik teisėtus aktus ir negali išvengti savo priimtų teisės aktų teisėtumo priežiūros. EB teisės aktų teisėtumas yra tikrinamas trijose pagrindinėse procedūrose – ieškinyje dėl teisės akto panaikinimo (EB sutarties 230 str.), preliminariame nutarime dėl teisės akto galiojimo (234 str.) ir prašyme dėl teisės akto netaikymo (241 str.). Šių procedūrų skirtumai bei ypatybės ir sudaro šio darbo objektą. Magistro darbas susideda iš trijų dalių. Pirmojoje yra aptariama EB tiesės aktų teisėtumo priežiūros funkcijų svarba. Šios funkcijos yra patikėtos Europos Teisingumo Teismui ir Pirmosios instancijos teismui, kurie turi užtikrinti tiek EB institucijų kontrolę, tiek efektyvią privačių asmenų teisių apsaugą. Antrojoje darbo dalyje yra analizuojami atskiri teisėtumo priežiūros procedūrų skirtumai – kokios yra privačių asmenų, valstybių narių ir EB institucijų galimybės inicijuoti minėtas procedūras, kokių EB institucijų ir kurių rūšių teisės aktų teisėtumas gali būti tikrinamas, kokie yra senaties terminai procedūroms pradėti, kokie yra ETT ir PIT sprendimų, priimtų teisėtumo priežiūros procedūrose, teisinių pasekmių skirtumai. Ypatingas dėmesys nagrinėjant teisėtumo kontrolės procedūrų skirtumus yra skiriamas privačių asmenų teisėms. Trečiojoje magistro darbo dalyje yra aptariamas teisėtumo priežiūros procedūrų tarpusavio... [to full text] / This diploma work deals with the issues of the review of the legality of European Community acts. The importance of this theme is based on the grounds that all Community institutions are obliged to adopt only legal measures and cannot avoid the review of their acts. There are three main procedures in which the legality of EC acts may be challenged – an action for annulment (article 230 of EC Treaty), a plea of illegality (article 241) and a preliminary ruling on validity of a Community act (article 234). The differences and specific features of these procedures constitute an object of this work. The diploma work is diveded in three parts. The first part concerns the necessity of functions of review of the legality of EC measures. These functions are entrusted to Community judicature – the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance – and must ensure the control of EC institutions and the effective protection of the rights of private parties as well. In the second part of this work it is analysed what are the possibilities of private parties, member states and EC institutions to initiate each of the mentioned procedure, what types of acts and of which institutions are susceptible to judicial review, what are the time limits to bring proceedings, what are the grounds of illegality of EC measures and what are the effects of decisions given by Community courts in the procedures of judicial review. The special attention in examining the differences between the procedures is... [to full text]

Si le droit administratif colombien se fonde sur les mêmes principes que le droit administratif français, l’interdiction de l’arbitrage aux personnes morales de droit public n’a pas été reprise en Colombie. La jurisprudence a admis l’application de l’arbitrage aux contrats publics même en l’absence d’autorisation législative. Le principe de légalité, la continuité du service public et le respect de l’intérêt public fondent le droit des contrats publics. Cependant, celui-ci se développe sous l’égide du droit commun des obligations et des contrats et il partage les aspects essentiels du droit de l’arbitrage : l’autonomie de la volonté et la liberté contractuelle. Si le droit colombien n’impose aucune limite à l’arbitrage des contrats publics depuis 1993 alors que les lois antérieures en fixaient, cette évolution législative peut-elle être interprétée comme l’octroi de compétences équivalentes aux arbitres et au juge administratif ? Le régime du droit commun de l’arbitrage s’adapte-t-il aux besoins du contentieux des contrats publics ? Quelle est la portée de ce changement pour l’arbitrage international des contrats publics ? Au-delà des contradictions apparentes, les principes des contrats publics n’entrent pas en confrontation avec les notions essentielles à l’arbitrage. La compétence des arbitres se limite aux contentieux subjectifs des contrats publics. La jurisprudence forgée en la matière depuis 1964 s’est consolidée au fil du temps, nous permettant d’évaluer l’efficacité et l’effectivité de l’arbitrage des contrats publics. / Even though Colombian and French administrative law are grounded on the same principles, Colombian administrative law did not adopt the stance that public legal bodies are prevented from agreeing arbitration clauses and submitting their disputes to arbitration. Colombian case law has recognized arbitration clauses in relation to disputes arising out of public contracts, even when there is no specific legal authorization to do so. The principle of the rule of law, the continuity of the provision of public services, the public interest and the existence of a specialized administrative jurisdiction, are the foundations of public contract law. Nevertheless, public contract law is implemented under the aegis of contract law and it shares essential aspects of arbitration law: the autonomy of the parties free will and freedom of contract. Since 1993, Colombian law has not imposed any limit on the arbitration of disputes arising out of public contracts, even if former laws did so. Could this legal progress be construed as granting similar jurisdiction to arbitrators and administrative judges? Is general arbitration law suitable for the needs of the settlement of disputes arising out of public contracts? What is the scope of this change for the international arbitration of disputes arising out of public contracts? Despite the apparent contradictions, the essential tenets of public contracts, do not conflict with the key components of arbitration. The jurisdiction of arbitrators is confined to “contentieux subjectifs”. Colombian case law has developed since 1964 and has been consolidated over time, allowing us to evaluate to what extent the arbitration of disputes arising out of public contracts is an effective and efficient tool for public administration.