Admissibility of action for annulment of a regulation brought by individuals25/08/04 / cata_european-union-news

The European Court of Justice (“Court”) confirmed its position regarding the notion of admissibility of an action for annulment of a regulation brought by a natural or legal person in the context of paragraph four of Article 230 of the EC Treaty. The Court set aside the judgement of the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) and refused a new interpretation of this provision in that ruling.

Jégo-Quéré, a fishing company established in France, was using nets which were prohibited by Commission Regulation no. 1162/2001. In August 2001, Jégo-Quéré brought an action before CFI for annulment of two of the provisions of that regulation. The Commission raised an objection of inadmissibility of such action by an individual.

Under paragraph four of Article 230 EC, which concerns action for annulment of a community act filed by so called ‘non-privileged’ applicants, a ‘natural or legal person’ is entitled only to challenge: (1) a decision addressed to the applicant or (2) a decision, which although in a form of a regulation or addressed to another person, is of “a direct and individual concern to applicant”. In the latter case, the claim is admissible if three criteria are satisfied: the measure must be equivalent to a decision, it must be of direct concern to applicant and it must be of individual concern to applicant.

The Court had previously interpreted the notion of direct and individual concern in the famous case Plaumann & Co v Commission (case C-25/62, 1963). According to this case law, an applicant that wishes to establish an individual concern must prove that the decision affects him due to certain characteristics which are peculiarly relevant to him, not only by the mere fact that the applicant belongs to a class of persons who are affected by the decision in question. In practice, however, this case law resulted in a situation where almost no individual applicants were given direct access to Community courts.

CFI, however, gave a new definition of the requirement of individual concern, thereby breaking with previous case law of the Court. Although it held that the applicant cannot be regarded as individually concerned, it concluded that procedures provided for in the Treaty could no longer be regarded as guaranteeing the right to an effective remedy in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, enabling affected persons to contest the legality of Community measures of general application which had directly affected their legal situation. CFI proposed to reconsider the so far strict interpretation of the notion of a person individually concerned and held the action for annulment by Jégo-Quéré to be admissible.

The CFI judgement was appealed by the Commission to the Court. In its judgement of 1 April 2004, the Court confirmed its previous position on the question of individual concern. It reaffirmed that the Treaty had established a complete system of legal remedies designed to ensure effective protection of the rights of the citizen under the Community legal order. Where natural or legal persons cannot, by reason of the conditions for admissibility (e. g. due to a lack of individual concern), directly challenge Community measures of general application, they are able, depending on the case, either indirectly to plead the invalidity of such acts before the Community Courts under Article 241 EC, or to do so before the national courts and ask them to make a reference to the Court under Article for a preliminary ruling on validity. The Court stressed that the national courts are required, so far as possible, to interpret and apply national procedural rules governing the exercise of rights of action in a way that enables natural and legal persons to challenge before the courts the legality of any decision or other national measure relative to the application to them of a Community act of general application, by pleading the invalidity of such an act. The Member States should establish a system of legal remedies and procedures so that to ensure the respect for the right to effective judicial protection.

Consequently, the Court set aside the CFI judgement and declared the application for annulment by Jégo-Quéré to be inadmissible.