Abstract

This paper comments upon the part of the Micula award that deals with legitimate expectations as the basis of liability. It provides a critical view of the tribunal's reasoning looking at how tribunal justified its decision that legitimate expectations were breached although it had confirmed that there was no arbitrary or discriminatory treatment. It studies the case law which was the source from which the standard was drawn and concludes that the cited cases were inapposite being either contrary in outcome or based on different facts or law. Also, it explores whether the CJEU ...