歐盟人民提起撤銷之訴之研究：以UPA案與Jégo-Quéré案為例

Private Parties before the European Court of Justice for Annulment: Remark on ECJ Judgment in the cases UPA and Jégo-Quéré.

尤騰毅(Teng-Yi You)

指導教授 ： 王泰銓

淡江大學/國際研究學院/歐洲研究所碩士班/碩士(2007年)

https://doi.org/10.6846/TKU.2007.00388

摘要

歐洲法院的訴訟類型，對歐盟人民最重要者，為歐洲共同體條約第230條撤銷之訴。原因在於共同體機關的行為，不法侵害歐盟人民權利時，透過撤銷之訴，歐洲法院得審查該係爭規範的合法性。但以現行條約的規定，歐盟人民不易的進入歐洲法院進行訴訟，挑戰違法的共同體機關之規範。其中一個重要的原因在於歐洲法院嚴格解釋原告適格性。
在2002年的UPA案中，負責該案的輔佐法官Jacobs在其意見書中，針對歐盟人民不易提起撤銷之訴的原因，提出建言。並進而啟發了Jégo-Quéré案的第一審法院判決，認為必須放寬原告適格性的解釋，以保障歐盟人民之權利。雖然最後於歐洲法院的審理中，皆不被採納，但其所指出的問題，即嚴格的限縮解釋當事人適格性，是造成無法保障歐盟人民的訴訟權原因，此一觀點，受到當時正在召開的歐洲制憲大會（European Convention）之重視。討論歐盟人民進入歐洲法院之權利以及司法保障等，最後並反應在歐洲憲法條約（Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe）第III-365條上。
本文以UPA案與Jégo-Quéré案作為研究歐洲法院撤銷之訴的中心案例，藉以釐清歐盟人民在提起撤銷之訴時的困境，以及實際遭遇的難題。本文發現，儘管撤銷之訴的相關規定已經修正以因應實際遭遇的難題，但歐洲憲法條約尚未生效，且其之後的法律工具與現行制度略有不同，因此仍存在許多未知的考驗。

本論文分為以下各章：
第一章為緒論，說明本論文之研究動機與目的，以及研究方法等，並說明本文之架構。
第二章則在回顧歐洲法院對於歐盟人民提出撤銷之訴，原告適格性之見解，試圖歸納出，歐洲法院對於係爭規範與當事人是否具有「直接且個別相關」的判定標準。
第三章在討論UPA案與Jégo-Quéré案的突破性見解，挑戰歐洲法院傳統以來對於原告適格之嚴格解釋。
第四章，本章從歐洲制憲大會的文獻中，分析制憲工作小組如何制訂修法方向，以保障歐盟人民的司法救濟權利，實際上是在解決司法保障與歐盟人民提起撤銷之訴的難題。
第五章總結本文之研究。

關鍵字

撤銷之訴 ； 當事人適格 ； 基本權利 ； 歐洲法院 ； 歐洲聯盟

並列摘要

The European Community Treaties established a system of judicial review whereby the European Court could control the legality of the acts of the Institutions of the Community. In the Community legal system, private applicants have the right to challenge Community acts under the article 230 (4) EC. The action for annulment, article 230(4) EC, occupies a central position in the system of judicial review and has its origins in annulment proceedings against illegal adminstrative action, as known to the legal systems of all the Member States. But the severe interpretation of the notion of ‘individual concern’ from Article 230 (4) EC by Court of Justice and the restrictions imposed by the Treaty itself on the possibility of challenging Community acts by individuals are criticized as being against the principle of effective judicial protection and leading in many cases to the denial of justice.

In 2002, Advocate General Jacobs in his Opinion in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA) contented that the issue at stake in UPA was whether the notion of individual concern laid down in Article 230 (4) needed to be reconsidered. On 3rd of May 2002 the Court of First Instance delivered a judgment in case Jégo-Quéré & Cie v. Commission. The judgment adopted to a big extent the Opinion delivered by Advocate General Jacobs in case UPA. But the Court of Justice has made it clear to adopt the traditional interpretation of individual concern. Furthermore, it added that, according to the system for judicial review of legality established by the Treaty, a natural or legal person can bring an action challenging a regulation only if it is concerned both directly and individually.

The Court of Justice clearly stated that it regards the present Community system of remedies as complete and one guaranteeing the right of effective judicial protection. If any modification of this system was to be attained, the Member States shall act under Article 48 TEU. This message was delivered when the work commenced in the European Convention, which decided to provide a forum for the deliberations in this question.

The European Convention set up a Working Group on judicial remedies examined the question whether the currents system of judicial remedies for individuals against acts of the institutions needs to be reformed. Finally, the Convention amendment of the wording of Article 230 (4) EC.

並列關鍵字

Action for annulment ； Locus Standi ； fundamental right ； European Court of Justice ； European Union

參考文獻

王泰銓（1997），《歐洲共同體法總論》，台北：五南圖書。

Albros-Llorens, A. (1996). Private Parties in European Community law - Challenging Community Measures. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Brown, L. N., & Kennedy, T. (2000). Court of Justice of the European Communities (5th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell UK.

Craig, P. (2006). EU Administrative Law. New York: Oxford University Press

Reid, K. (2004, 2nd ed.). A Practitioner’s Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights. London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.