{"id":109991,"date":"2026-04-19T21:38:01","date_gmt":"2026-04-19T19:38:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/?p=109991"},"modified":"2026-04-19T21:58:50","modified_gmt":"2026-04-19T19:58:50","slug":"ana-fukai-sanchez-miguel-castro-francesco-mittica-greta-caratozzolo-stefano-montaldo-associations-legal-standing-before-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-in-actions-for-annulment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/ana-fukai-sanchez-miguel-castro-francesco-mittica-greta-caratozzolo-stefano-montaldo-associations-legal-standing-before-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-in-actions-for-annulment\/","title":{"rendered":"ANA FUKAI SANCHEZ MIGUEL CASTRO, FRANCESCO MITTICA, GRETA CARATOZZOLO, STEFANO MONTALDO, Associations\u2019 Legal Standing Before the Court of Justice of the European Union in Actions for Annulment: Asocia\u021bia Ini\u021biativa pentru Justi\u021bie"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Abstract (ITA)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

La presente nota analizza l\u2019ordinanza del Tribunale nella causa Asocia\u021bia Ini\u021biativa pentru Justi\u021bie\/Commissione<\/em> (causa T-1126\/23), con cui \u00e8 stato dichiarato irricevibile un ricorso di annullamento proposto da un\u2019associazione rumena di pubblici ministeri contro la decisione (UE) 2023\/1786 della Commissione che abroga il meccanismo di cooperazione e verifica (CVM). Il caso solleva questioni significative relative alla legittimazione delle associazioni ai sensi dell\u2019articolo 263, paragrafo 4, TFUE e al rapporto tra i concetti di effetto diretto e di interesse diretto. Lo scritto esamina la valutazione di ammissibilit\u00e0 del Tribunale e la sua conclusione secondo cui l\u2019abrogazione del CVM non riguardava direttamente n\u00e9 l\u2019associazione n\u00e9 i suoi membri, nonostante il precedente riconoscimento dell\u2019effetto diretto dei parametri di riferimento del CVM. L\u2019analisi approfondisce la distinzione operata dal Tribunale tra effetto diretto e interesse diretto, sostenendo che le disposizioni che producono solo effetti giuridici oggettivi \u2013 imponendo obblighi esclusivamente agli Stati membri \u2013 non incidono automaticamente sulla situazione giuridica dei singoli ai sensi dell\u2019articolo 263 TFUE. L\u2019annotazione evidenzia inoltre il rischio di un vuoto di tutela giurisdizionale per le associazioni che rappresentano interessi collettivi indirettamente interessati dagli atti dell\u2019UE. Conclude suggerendo un criterio pi\u00f9 flessibile per valutare la legittimazione delle associazioni, che potrebbe rafforzare l\u2019effettiva tutela giurisdizionale e meglio garantire lo Stato di diritto nell\u2019ordinamento giuridico dell\u2019UE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract (ENG)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This annotation analyses the General Court\u2019s Order in Asocia\u021bia Ini\u021biativa pentru Justi\u021bie\/Commission<\/em> (Case T-1126\/23), which declared inadmissible an action for annulment brought by a Romanian association of public prosecutors against Commission Decision (EU) 2023\/1786 repealing the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM). The case raises significant issues concerning associations\u2019 legal standing under Article 263, paragraph 4, TFEU and the relationship between the notions of direct effect and direct concern. The annotation examines the General Court\u2019s admissibility assessment and its conclusion that the repeal of the CVM did not directly concern neither the association nor its members, despite the prior recognition of direct effect of the CVM benchmarks. The analysis elaborates on the General Court\u2019s distinction between direct effect and direct concern, arguing that provisions producing only objective legal effects \u2013 by imposing obligations solely on Member States \u2013 do not automatically affect the legal situation of individuals within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU. The annotation further highlights the risk of a judicial protection gap for associations representing collective interests that are indirectly affected by EU acts. It concludes by suggesting a more flexible test to assess on associations\u2019 legal standing, which could strengthen effective judicial protection and better uphold the rule of law within the EU legal order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

*<\/a> This work is the outcome of a collective writing methodology, as an innovative approach to teaching and learning EU Law. Therefore, each section has been drafted collectively, thanks to the essential contribution of each member of the group of authors. This publication has been drafted in the framework of the teaching activities of the Jean Monnet Chair Civic Engagement, Rights and Remedies, held by Prof. Stefano Montaldo and funded by the European Union, Erasmus+ Actions 2023. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the granting authority, i.e. the European Education and Culture Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t