Individual Legal Protection under the Structural Funds
| Author | Diana Comijs |
| Published date | 01 June 1995 |
| Date | 01 June 1995 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X9500200206 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Diana Comijs *
Individual Legal Protection under the Structural Funds
Wide Fund for Nature UK against the Commission of the European Com-
munities [1994] ECR II 735.
§1. Introduction
The An
Taisce
case provides an excellent opportunity to cast some light on the issue of
individual legal protection in the field of structural policy and to highlight the position
of
third parties in this context. The applicants, the WWF UK and An
Taisce
interpreted
the Commission's decision not to start proceedings under Article 169 EEC Treaty as a
decision not to withdraw structural funds subsidies allocated to Ireland. The Court of
First Instance, however, decided that the Commission had never explicitly taken a
decision not to withdraw the subsidies and therefore ruled the application inadmissible.
On further reflection it appears that particular difficulties arise as far as legal protection
in the field of structural funds is concerned, due to the special relationship that exists
between the European Commission, the Member State and the recipient of the financial
assistance. For parties which are not the designated recipients of subsidies it will be
very difficult to meet the requirements of the Court for admissibility under Article 173
EEC Treaty. For interest groups, such as environmental groups, this obstacle of ad-
missibility will be even harder to overcome. 1To conclude this paper I will argue that
the safest road to legal protection for private parties in structural funds matters will
generally be through national jurisdictions.
*Diana Comijs is a researcher at the Centre for Enforcement of European Law (NISER) of the law
faculty of Utrecht University. She would like to thank Astrid Berg, Anne-Marie Rijs, Arja Snoek,
Marlon Steine and Rob Widdershoven for their comments on earlier drafts.
1. This question is still relevant, since the applicants have filed an appeal against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance (case C-325/94P).
MJ 2 (1995) 187
To continue reading
Request your trial