Abstract
This article analyzes the notion of “individual concern” in the context of the right to appeal confiscation measures issued by national customs authorities ex Art. 44, para. 1 of the Union Customs Code and in light of the Plaumann jurisprudence of the CJEU. It is argued that, in its JP judgment, the Court has employed a rather wide interpretation of “individual concern”, avoiding the rigid approach adopted in Art. 263, para. 4, TFEU, identically-formulated. The reasonableness of the adoption of the “Plaumann formula” in the area of customs appeals is also questioned. Furthermore, this paper highlights the role of the CFREU in strengthening the procedural and substantial conditions for the legitimacy of customs confiscation decisions, when the rights of a third-party acting in good faith are at stake.
| Translated title of the contribution | [Autom. eng. transl.] Right to appeal and administrative procedures for customs confiscation: some reflections starting from the JP v. judgment. Otdel “Mitnichesko razsledvane i razuznavane” |
|---|---|
| Original language | Italian |
| Pages (from-to) | 619-640 |
| Number of pages | 22 |
| Journal | STUDI SULL'INTEGRAZIONE EUROPEA |
| Volume | 2023 |
| Publication status | Published - 2023 |
Keywords
- Unione europea
- Diritto doganale
- Plaumann
- Corte di giustizia
- UE
- Ricorso
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of '[Autom. eng. transl.] Right to appeal and administrative procedures for customs confiscation: some reflections starting from the JP v. judgment. Otdel “Mitnichesko razsledvane i razuznavane”'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver