Acceso usuarios
The European Court of Justice has persisted in adopting an unduly restrictive interpretation of Article 230(4) EC and that persistence has reached its apogee in the UPA decision, while at the same time it was mirrored in the relevant provisions of the draft Constitution. Therefore, it is surprising to see that in the aftermath of UPA, there can be something positive that can be explored further and that can be tested in order to establish whether any indirect, alas limited, liberalisation of the standing criteria is possible. The Ten Kate case established that, in principle, a Member State could be under an obligation under domestic law to challenge the validity of Community legislation. If the state, in all of its different manifestations, fails to challenge the validity of a Community measure when such an obligation arises under municipal law, then the citizen could be in a position to claim compensation. Therefore, the case introduces the doctrine of state liability and the agency analogy (with the state representing the individual or as parens patriae) as connected paths trying to circumvent the standing restrictions. The advantage is that the proceedings would take place under national law and would be detached from the Plaumann conditions. It is proposed that constitutionally entrenched human rights, like effective judicial protection, combined with the principle of legitimate expectation, could create the legal basis for an obligation of the state under national law to challenge the validity of Community norms. The paradox is that effective judicial protection was the exact argument that the European Court of Justice sidelined in UPA.
