The CJEU’s Review of Hybrid Acts in an Era of Rising Dissent Toward Non-Majoritarian Institutions

This article examines how hybrid arrangements – international agreements formally concluded by Member States of the EU but operationally dependent on EU institutions – create accountability gaps when excluded from the jurisdiction of the CJEU. The ESMT and the EU-Turkey Statement illustrate divergent approaches of the CJEU towards its jurisdiction of hybrid acts: in Ledra Advertising and Chrysostomides, the Court accepted jurisdiction over damages claims against EU institutions, while in the EU–Turkey Statement cases, the General Court declined jurisdiction despite clear EU involvement. Building on and expanding existing scholarship, this article develops functional criteria to determine when a hybrid act should fall within, and when it should lie outside, the Court’s jurisdiction. Establishing such criteria is vital in a climate of growing dissensus toward non-majoritarian institutions like the CJEU – a dissensus exacerbated by authoritarian tendencies in some Member States, where judicial independence and EU oversight are increasingly under pressure. This article is part of a contribution to a Special Section that critically analyses the role of non-majoritarian instruments and institutions with respect to three challenges that shape contemporary democracies in Europe: socio-economic inequality and discrimination, growing authoritarianism, and the pressing climate crisis.