Bergaderm - Judicial review - EU Law - EU liability
The synchronization in Bergaderm of the conditions applicable for the liability of the European Union with those suitable for Member State liability has arguably led to a situation in which the framework of Union liability has been out of step with the principles of liability prevalent in the legal systems of the Member States. There does not seem to be any reason to privilege non-legislative acts. The liability of the Union will only be incurred if such acts breach a rule of law anticipated conferring rights on individuals.
Where the Union institutions enjoy discretion in the adoption of such acts, the Union Courts have already reduced the severity of review to manifest illegality. Hence, this paper discusses how difficult it is for justification of a further restriction of the conditions for liability to occur, as well as features of Union liability in comparison to Member State liability. Representative democracy is the foundation of the EU. Article 20 TEU states that Union citizens have the right to enjoy their privileges, and be subject to the responsibilities and roles that the treaties provide. These include the Treaty on the Functioning EU (TFEU) and the Treaty on EU (TEU) as amended in 2009 by the Treaty of Lisbon. It also states that national courts have a responsibility of ensuring that an effective judicial remedy exists in order to protect and enforce personal rights under the EU law.
[...] Such factors offer more reassurance to the credibility behind the case. They also remove the distinction between legislative and administrative acts related to the case. Where the Adaptation Committee fails to deliver its opinion regarding appropriate measures for controlling the highest acceptable level of an ingredient used in the processing of cosmetics, there is no obligation for the Commission to submit similar opinions, without amendment, to the Council. This was set up by the 76/768 Directive on the formulation of the Member States' Laws relating to cosmetic goods. [...]
[...] Article 20 TEU states that Union citizens have the right to enjoy their privileges, and be subject to the responsibilities and roles that the treaties provide. These include the Treaty on the Functioning EU (TFEU) and the Treaty on EU (TEU) as amended in 2009 by the Treaty of Lisbon. It also states that national courts have a responsibility of ensuring that an effective judicial remedy exists in order to protect and enforce personal rights under the EU law. This agreement with the EU, by contracted Member States, has led to the limitation in the states' sovereign rights, although concerning limited fields (Pekka, 2012). [...]
[...] www.oboolo.com The contested discretion The Bergaderm case is one of the landmark EU law cases in the past decade(Pekka, 2012). Bergaderm SA is a French cosmetic and para-pharmaceutical company headed by Jean-Jacques Goupil. In the year 2000, these appellants appealed against a court's decision of rejecting its claim for compensation relating to damages incurred after an order against certain cosmetics ingredients. The Court of First Instance had restricted the company's use of certain ingredients used in the manufacture of Bergasol, on grounds that they carried a health risk among consumers. [...]
[...] On the contrary, the appellant's evidence lacked sufficient backup regarding these requirements. Lastly, in order to establish a reasonable causal link, Bergaderm has to prove that the damages incurred were a direct consequence of the Union's breach. This is because the Union does not compensate for every harmful consequence, even if it is negligible. Under Article 2 of the Commission Decision 78/45/EEC , the role of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetology is to give an opinion to the Commission regarding any technical or scientific issue in the cosmetics industry. [...]
[...] The Court of Justice should also demand that the Commission pays for damages incurred (Andrea, 2009). On the other hand, the Commission maintains that the Court should reject the appeal as unacceptable, or with no sufficient evidence. Hence, the appellants should cater for the damages incurred. Bergaderm Company bases its appeal on three grounds. Firstly, the Court of First Instance was incorrect in concluding the Adaptation Directive as a legislative measure. Secondly, the Court committed a marked assessment error concerning the commission use of powers. [...]
using our reader.