An EU Advocate General ruled that judges’ associations have standing to challenge the Council of the EU’s approval of Polish Recovery and Resilience Plan (KPO) milestones.
Judges’ Associations Have Legal Standing
EU Advocate General Tamara Capeta determined that judges’ associations are entitled to bring a legal challenge against the Council of the EU’s decision to approve the milestones related to the KPO.
The associations—the Association of European Administrative Judges (AEAJ), European Association of Judges (EAJ), Rechters voor Rechters, and Magistrates Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (MEDEL)—initiated the challenge.
Concerns Over Milestone Flexibility
The associations argued that the conditions for disbursing funds, particularly those concerning the Polish judicial system (milestones F1G, F2G, and F3G), were overly flexible.
They contend Poland could fulfill these milestones without fully adhering to rulings from the Court of Justice of the EU and EU law.
Initial Dismissal and Advocate General’s Reversal
In June 2024, the complaints were dismissed as inadmissible, citing a lack of legal standing because the decision was a budgetary conditionality matter and did not directly affect the judges or associations.
Advocate General Capeta disagreed with this reasoning, stating the EU Court had the right to consider that the insufficient nature of the reforms required under milestone F1G did not directly impact the legal situation of Polish judges generally.
Direct and Individual Impact on Associations
The Advocate General examined when an act can directly and individually concern associations acting in their own name, as per Article 263(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
She recognized that associations have their own interests when defending collective interests that form part of their identity and extend beyond the simple sum of their members’ individual interests.
Defining Direct and Individual Impact
In this context, direct impact should be understood as requiring the challenged act to be a direct source of effects on the collective interests the association defends.
Individual impact should be assessed based on whether the association’s fundamental interests and activities distinguish it from other associations and its members regarding the challenged act.
Legal Basis for Challenges
Article 263 of the TFEU allows any natural or legal person to challenge regulatory acts that directly concern them and do not require implementing measures.
However, unlike member states, non-privileged plaintiffs must demonstrate a legal interest when seeking the annulment of a European act.