eu-charter

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Article 41 - Right to good administration

Article 41 - Right to good administration

1. Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union.
2. This right includes:
(a) the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;
(b) the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy;
(c) the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.
3. Every person has the right to have the Union make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States.4. Every person may write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages of the Treaties and must have an answer in the same language.

  • Text:

    Article 41 is based on the existence of the Union as subject to the rule of law whose characteristics were developed in the case-law which enshrined inter alia good administration as a general principle of law (see inter alia Court of Justice judgment of 31 March 1992 in Case C-255/90 P Burban [1992] ECR I-2253, and Court of First Instance judgments of 18 September 1995 in Case T-167/94 Nölle [1995] ECR II-2589, and 9 July 1999 in Case T-231/97 New Europe Consulting and others [1999] ECR II-2403). The wording for that right in the first two paragraphs results from the case-law (Court of Justice judgment of 15 October 1987 in Case 222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097, paragraph 15 of the grounds, judgment of 18 October 1989 in Case 374/87 Orkem [1989] ECR 3283, judgment of 21 November 1991 in Case C-269/90 TU München [1991] ECR I-5469, and Court of First Instance judgments of 6 December 1994 in Case T-450/93 Lisrestal [1994] ECR II-1177, 18 September 1995 in Case T-167/94 Nölle [1995] ECR II-2589) and the wording regarding the obligation to give reasons comes from Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (cf. also the legal base in Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for the adoption of legislation in the interest of an open, efficient and independent European administration).

    Paragraph 3 reproduces the right now guaranteed by Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
    Paragraph 4 reproduces the right now guaranteed by Article 20(2)(d) and Article 25 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In accordance with Article 52(2) of the Charter, those rights are to be applied under the conditions and within the limits defined by the Treaties.

    The right to an effective remedy, which is an important aspect of this question, is guaranteed in Article 47 of this Charter.

    Source:
    Official Journal of the European Union C 303/17 - 14.12.2007
    Preamble - Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights:
    These explanations were originally prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Although they do not as such have the status of law, they are a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter.
  • Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parliament
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Fourth Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Institutional affairs
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2018:962
  • F. F. (F. F.), N. P. (N. P.) ir A. P. (A. P.),. v. Migration Department under the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Lithuania (Migracijos departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos)
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    National Court/Tribunal
    Deciding body:
    Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Justice, freedom and security
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
  • Agria Polska sp. z o.o. and Others v European Commission
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Ninth Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Economic and monetary affairs
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2018:756
  • Christoph Klein v European Commission
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Third Chamber)
    Type:
    Policy area:
    Institutional affairs
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2018:679
  • Czech Republic v European Commission
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Third Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Agriculture
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2018:678
  • Massimo Campailla contre Union européenne
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Seventh Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Institutional affairs
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2018:655
  • European Union Intellectual Property Office v Puma SE
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Second Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Internal market
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2018:509
  • Ibrahima Diallo v État belge
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (First Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Free movement and equality
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2018:499
  • Appellate: S.I. LLC against an act by the head of the contracting authority of an operative programme
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    National Court/Tribunal
    Deciding body:
    Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Bulgaria
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Economic and monetary affairs
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
  • Kevin Karp v European Parliament
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Ninth Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Institutional affairs
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2018:471

0 results found

0 results found

0 results found

0 results found