''Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Parliament and Council'' (2013) C-583/11 is an

EU law European Union law is a system of Supranational union, supranational Law, laws operating within the 27 member states of the European Union (EU). It has grown over time since the 1952 founding of the European Coal and Steel Community, to promote ...

case concerned with

judicial review Judicial review is a process under which a government's executive, legislative, or administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are in ...

in the European Union.

Facts

The claimants, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, a non-profit Canadian organisation representing over 50,000 Inuit, challenged a regulation of the

European Parliament The European Parliament (EP) is one of the two legislative bodies of the European Union and one of its seven institutions. Together with the Council of the European Union (known as the Council and informally as the Council of Ministers), it ...

and

Council A council is a group of people who come together to consult, deliberate, or make decisions. A council may function as a legislature, especially at a town, city or county/shire level, but most legislative bodies at the state/provincial or natio ...

on seal products. They further argued that to not be allowed a claim under

TFEU The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is one of two treaties forming the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU), the other being the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It was previously known as the Treaty Establish ...

art 263(4) would be inconsistent with the

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) enshrines certain political, social, and economic rights for European Union (EU) citizens and residents into EU law. It was drafted by the European Convention and solemnly procla ...

, article 47, on an effective remedy. The General Court rejected the application, because it challenged a regulation made as a legislative act under TFEU art 289, and this was not a 'regulatory' act under art 263(4). This meant the claimants would have to show individual as well as direct concern.

Judgment

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice, upholding the decision of the General Court, held that a 'legislative act' is defined by the procedure used to adopt it, not on a functional basis.

References

{{reflist Court of Justice of the European Union case law

Facts

Judgment

See also

References