Key facts of the case:
The Estonian-Latvian Territorial Cooperation Programme 2007 – 2013 was implemented according to Council Regulation 1083/2006, with the ERDF Regulation, with the Commission Regulation 1828/2006 and with the Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs during 2007-2013. The Monitoring Committee (Seirekomitee) functions as the decisive and administrative body of the programme. The appellant applied for financing of one of its projects within programme, the application successfully passed the first selection phase of the competition, following which it was sent to the technical secretariat for quality assessment. Technical secretariat ranked the projects based on the results of the quality assessment phase and delivered the ranking to the monitoring committee for final decisions. The monitoring committee did not satisfy the applicant’s application, after which the latter contested the committee’s decision in administrative court. The guidelines of the programme state inter alia that:"The decisions of the Monitoring Committee are not appealable at any place of jurisdiction." According to the administrative court (halduskohus), the appellant did not have the right to contest the decision in administrative court and therefore the appeal was left without a move. The appellant filed an appeal against the court ruling in the circuit court (ringkonnakohus). The circuit court turned to the European Court of Justice for preliminary ruling and suspended the proceedings.
23. Art 19 (1) of the Treaty of the European Union states that: “Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law.” A similar right arises from Article 47(1) of the Charter. Article 41(1) of the Charter states that: “Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union.” Subsection 2 of the same Article states that this right includes the right of every person to be heard, to have access to his or her file and the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. 1. Was the suspension of the proceedings in conformity with the law? 2. Can a court’s decision to turn to ECJ for preliminary ruling be annulled on the request of the applicant? 3. Which court has the jurisdiction over the decisions of the monitoring committee? 4. Is the article in the monitoring committee’s statutes, which prohibits contesting its judgements in accordance with the EU law?
23. Euroopa Liidu lepingu art 19 lg 1 teine lõik sätestab: "Liikmesriigid näevad ette tulemusliku õiguskaitse tagamiseks vajaliku kaebeõiguse liidu õigusega hõlmatud valdkondades." Sarnane õigus tuleneb ELPH art 47 lg st 1. ELPH art 41 lg 1 sätestab: "Igaühel on õigus sellele, et liidu institut-sioonid, organid ja asutused käsitleksid tema küsimusi erapooletult, õiglaselt ning mõistliku aja jooksul." Sama artikli lõige 2 sätestab, et see õigus hõlmab isiku õiguse ärakuulamisele, õiguse andmetega tutvumisele ja asutuse kohustuse otsuseid põhjendada.