#ECJ #AG #Ćapeta: Individuals may bring an action for damages against the #EU

#ECJ #AG Ćapeta: Individuals may bring an action for damages against the #EU before the EU Courts based on alleged breaches of fundamental rights by EU Common Foreign and Security Policy measures #Eulex #Kosovo

https://t.co/ATb3CgbPxg

Advocate General Ćapeta: Individuals may bring an action for damages
against the EU before the EU Courts based on alleged breaches of
fundamental rights by EU Common Foreign and Security Policy measures

Two individuals lost family members in 1999 in the aftermath of the Kosovo conflict. The murders and
disappearances remained unsolved. In 2008, the European Union established a civilian mission, the EU Rule of Law
Mission in Kosovo (Eulex Kosovo), which had, among its tasks, the investigation of such crimes.
The two individuals considered that Eulex Kosovo did not properly investigate the crimes involving their family
members. As a result, they claimed a breach of their fundamental rights. They brought an action for damages
requesting compensation before the General Court of the EU. The General Court dismissed their action, holding that
it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The individuals and the EU Commission appealed the General Court’s decision.
Together with Case C-351/22 Neves 77 Solutions, in which Advocate General Ćapeta also delivered her Opinion today
(see Press Release No 180/23), these joined cases raise important questions regarding the limits of the EU Courts’
jurisdiction in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) set by the Treaties.
In her Opinion, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta concludes that EU law does not limit the jurisdiction of the
EU Courts to hear an action for damages brought by individuals based on an alleged breach of fundamental
rights by any type of CFSP measure.
Such an interpretation follows from the constitutional principles of the EU legal order, principally the rule of law that
includes the right to effective judicial protection and the principle requiring respect for fundamental rights in all EU
policies. The constitutional role of the EU Courts that follows from those principles can be limited only exceptionally.
The violation of fundamental rights cannot be a political choice in the European Union, and the EU Courts must have
jurisdiction to ensure that CFSP decisions do not cross ‘red lines’ imposed by fundamental rights.
Advocate General Ćapeta therefore proposes that the Court should find that the General Court erred in law
when it found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the action for damages.

NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General
to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The
Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.
NOTE: An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or
order of the General Court. In principle, the appeal does not have suspensive effect. If the appeal is admissible and
well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court.