Europos Sąjungos institucijų teisėtas ir neteisėtas neveikimas
Mykolo Romerio universitetas |
| Date |
|---|
2014 |
Analizuojant ES Teisingumo Teismo ir ES Bendrojo Teismo praktiką pastebima, kad ieškovai, teikdami ieškinius dėl ES institucijų neveikimo pagal SESV 265 straipsnio nuostatas, neretai siekia kvestionuoti ir tokį ES institucijų neveikimą, kuris paprastai laikomas pagrįstu ir teisėtu. Šiame straipsnyje atskleidžiama, kokiais kriterijais vadovaujantis yra sprendžiama, ar ES institucijos neveikimas yra teisėtas, ar neteisėtas, pateikiant teisminės praktikos šioje srityje analizę.
Inaction occurs when EU institution fails to adopt a decision or decides not to take action. However, not every inactivity is considered unlawful. EU case law confirms that discretion and obligation are two concepts which help to distinguish legal and illegal inaction. Inaction is lawful if the EU institution has wide discretion to choose whether to act and such discretion is not limited to acting conditions. The scope of discretion is identified from the EU law. Dispositive EU law without certain conditions to act shows that the EU institution has a wide discretion to choose whether to act or not. Discretion is usually identified from the word “may”. However, when the EU institution has a narrow discretion which can be identified from conditional EU law, it is obliged to use that discretion and such failure to act can be considered as unlawful. Illegal inaction is usually declared when EU institutions have no discretion but are obliged by imperative EU law to act. Conclusions can be drawn that when the EU institution has a wide discretion to choose whether to act or not, its inaction cannot be declared illegal. However, if the EU institution has a narrow discretion or obligation to act, its failure to act can be declared as unlawful.