Court of Justice 19 January 2016, C-361/14 P (European Commission v Peter McBride and Others.)

Also known as

Advocate General Sharpston recommends dismissing the Commission's appeal, arguing that the Commission lacked the necessary competence to adopt new decisions after the specific legal basis in Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413/EC had been repealed. The opinion maintains that while Article 266 TFEU imposes an obligation on institutions to comply with annulment judgments, it does not serve as an independent source of competence or revive expired legal bases. Consequently, the General Court did not err in ruling that the Commission could not rely on an ad hoc legal basis to re-examine safety tonnage increase requests following the disappearance of the original regulatory framework.AI

European Union · · · Cited by 6 · 19-01-2016

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SHARPSTON delivered on 19 January 2016 ( 1 ) Case C‑361/14 P European Commission v Peter McBride and Others ‛Appeal — Interpretation of Article 266 TFEU — Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/413/EC — Resource conservation measures and restructuring of the fisheries sector — Requests for increased safety tonnage — Annulment by the General Court of Commission Decision

Read the full text

This document is published by eur-lex.europa.eu.

Moonlit adds the citation network (6 references), article-level links and cross-references, which are available to search for free.