LTŠiame straipsnyje tiriamas Lisabonos sutartimi įtvirtintas Sutarties dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo 263 straipsnis ir iš jo kylantys ieškinių dėl panaikinimo priimtinumo sąlygų pasikeitimai. Tyrimo metu nustatyta, kad jis, palyginti su anksčiau galiojusia EB sutartimi, įveda keletą naujovių. Pirma, išplečiamas institucijų, kurių aktai gali būti peržiūrimi, sąrašas, antra, Regionų komitetas priskiriamas prie kvaziprivilegijuotų ieškovų, galinčių ginti savo prerogatyvas, o nacionaliniams teismams suteikiama tam tikra teisė ginčyti ES teisės aktus subsidiarumo principo kontekste, ir, trečia, išplečiama privačių subjektų locus standi. Būtent pastarajam klausimui skiriama daugiausia dėmesio - straipsnyje itin plačiai analizuojama, kaip pakito privačių subjektų locus standi ginčijant ES teisės aktus ir ar tai išsprendžia su ankstesne straipsnio redakcija sietas teisės į veiksmingą teisminę gynybą problemas.
ENOn 1 December 2009 the Lisbon Treaty came into force and all the reforms it suggested became a reality. This article analyses changes in relation to the action for annulment under Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) - Article 263 TFEU. The author seeks to establish how the Lisbon Treaty changed the previous regulation, and whether the new article will be able to overcome the criticism of standing rules which were such harsh before. Having examined Article 263 TFEU, the author concludes that it introduces several changes. Firstly, Court's jurisdiction is extended to cover acts of the European Council, Union bodies, ornees and agencies which are intended to produce legal effects. Secondly, the Committee of Regions acquired status of semi-privileged applicant to bring actions for annulment for the purposes of protecting its prerogatives, while national parliaments (through the Member States) were granted certain standing in annulment proceedings on subsidiary grounds. Thirdly, locus standi of private applicants is extended. Analyzing the reform of the standing of private applicants, the author concludes, that while the Lisbon Treaty does not solve all the problems related to effective judicial protection, it diminishes them. The main change that liberalizes standing is that only direct concern will be required in respect of regulatory acts, which do not entail implementing measures. Although the concept of regulatory act is not defined, most likely it will include all non-legislative measures, i.e. delegated and implementing acts.