The Plea of Illegality as a Legal Remedy – Review of the Legality of EU Acts

The remedy referred to in Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has not been extensively elucidated in Polish nor in foreign legal writings, remaining rather off the mainstream of academic discourse. This seems mainly due to the fact that it is an ancillary (incidental) remedy, and in order to successfully benefit from it, a series of formal and legal requirements should be met, which mostly do not originate directly from the Treaty provisions, but have been developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The remedy, if it were formulated in a transparent and explicit manner in Article 277 TFEU, could play a key role as a model review for any type of implementing measures (i.e. for both individual decisions and acts based on legislative acts) which determine the legal position of private persons and entities. The inherent consequence of drafting the legislation in a general and abstract manner is that legal defects in legal provisions do not normally manifest themselves until after they have been applied in practice. The unclear legal structure of this measure determines its use in formulating an alternative plea in the form of an additional request in the pleadings, forming the basis of an action for annulment against an act of EU law (lodged on the basis of Article 263 TFEU). However, there are some grounds for the exception stipulated in Article 277 TFEU to be applied in all kinds of proceedings, therefore its limitation to the actions for annulment alone would run counter to the objective of that provision. This remedy also plays its specific role in employment cases involving elements of compensation as well as in intellectual property cases, but its use in actions for damages cannot be ruled out. In this regard the plea is being described as an indirect remedy. Indeed, from the beginning of its activity, the Court has held that a plea of illegality cannot be the basis of a new form of an autonomous action (does not constitute an independent right of action ) or an obligation for the national court to refer a question for a preliminary ruling.