Judgment_paragraph 41 · Hristo Gaydarov v Director na Glavna direktsia "Ohranitelna politsia" pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (C-430/10)

41Lastly, since, according to the referring court’s presentation of the then applicable national law and in particular the case-law to the effect that the administrative authority has a discretion in respect of adopting that type of measure and there is no judicial review of the exercise of that discretion, it must be emphasised that the person to whom such a measure is applied must have an effective judicial remedy (see, inter alia, Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651, paragraphs 18 and 19; Case 222/86 Heylens and Others [1987] ECR 4097, paragraph 14; and Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, paragraph 39). That remedy must permit a review of the legality of the decision at issue as regards matters of both fact and law in the light of European Union law (see, to that effect, Case C-69/10 Samba Diouf [2011] ECR I-7151, paragraph 57). In order to ensure that such review by the courts is effective, the interested party must be able to obtain the reasons for the decision taken in relation to him, either by reading the decision itself or by requesting and obtaining notification of those grounds, without prejudice to the power of the court with jurisdiction to require the authority concerned to provide that information (see, to that effect, inter alia, Heylens, paragraph 15, and Joined Cases C-372/09 and C-373/09 Peñarroja Fa [2011] ECR I-1785, paragraph 63).

Hristo Gaydarov v Director na Glavna direktsia "Ohranitelna politsia" pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (C-430/10)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections