Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

CJEU Case C-622/20 P / Order

Validity Foundation - Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association v European Commission
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Ninth Chamber)
Typ
Decision
Decision date
15/04/2021
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2021:310
  • CJEU Case C-622/20 P / Order

    Key facts of the case: 

    Appeal – European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) – Grant intended to support the deinstitutionalisation of social services for adults and people with disabilities – Letter of the European Commission refusing to suspend or cancel payment of the grant – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Concept of ‘challengeable act’ – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Effective judicial protection.

     

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby orders:

    1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.
    2. Validity Foundation – Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association shall bear their own costs.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    24) Moreover, the General Court added, in paragraph 43 of that order, that although the requirement as to the binding legal effects that an act must produce must be interpreted in the light of the right to judicial protection guaranteed under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), that right is not intended to change the rules relating to the admissibility of direct actions brought before the Courts of the European Union.

    ...

    29) In support of their appeal, the appellants raise two grounds, alleging, first, an error of law, in so far as the General Court found that a decision of the Commission such as that which the appellants requested the Commission to adopt does not directly entail binding legal effects on their legal position and, secondly, an error of law in the interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter.

    ...

    57) Therefore, the appellants claim that Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted so as to ensure its effectiveness, by providing persons with disabilities, represented by representative organisations, with access to the Courts of the European Union.

    Findings of the Court

    58) In paragraph 43 of the order under appeal, the General Court noted that although it is true that the requirement as to the binding legal effects that an act must produce must be interpreted in the light of the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, this right is not intended to change the system of judicial review laid down by the Treaties, particularly the rules relating to the admissibility of direct actions brought before the Courts of the European Union, with the result that the interpretation of the concept of ‘challengeable act’ in the light of Article 47 cannot result in that condition being disregarded without exceeding the powers conferred on the Courts of the European Union.