1.1 Privileged: MS rep indiv national interests,
Council collective national
interests, EP a pan-European
democratic voice and
Commission a pan-European
non-governmental public interest
1.2 Semi-privileged: ECB, Court of Auditors, Committee of
the Regions. to protect their institutional prerogatives
rather than police. defensive power to ensure other
institutions do not trespass on their legal entitlements
2 Non-privileged applicants
2.1 Regulatory acts and legislative acts
2.1.1 Art 263(4): any natural person may
institute proceedings against an act
which is either addressed to them or of
direct and individual concern to them
2.1.2 Regulatory act: direct concern. other acts:
direct and indiv concern, Distinction is axiomatic
2.1.3 Legislative Act
18.104.22.168 Art 289(3): a legal act is anything adopted by one of
the EU legislative procedures. All delegated and
implementing acts as regulatory acts.
2.2 Direct Concern
2.2.1 1. Causation: direct link b/w the act of the EU
institution and damage inflicted. 2. Nature of
interest affected by Union measure
22.214.171.124 on 2., Must be a legal entitlement;
and measure must adversely affect
applicant's legal position
2.2.2 Piraiki-Pitraiki: Greek cotton exporters challenged
a restriction on exporting to other parts of Union
that was applied to them after Greek accession.
French govt applied a pre-existing regime
restricting cotton imports from Greece.
126.96.36.199 ECJ held that pre-existing French regime would not change, with no
more than a theoretical possibility that French would not continue it
188.8.131.52 Test for direct concern is that actions
should be brought against EU institutions
only if they have exclusive responsibility
for the measure as the national authorities
had no discretion over it. High threshold.
2.2.3 Inuit: 'for an indiv to be directly
concerned by a EU measure, 1. that
measure must directly affect the legal
situation of that indiv; and 2. there
must be no discretion left to the
addressees of that measure who are
responsible for its implementation
2.3 Individual concern and the Plaumann formula
2.3.1 German authorities wished to suspend customs cuty
on importation of clementines. they needed
authorisation from the Commission which refused them.
The applicant an importer of clementines sought
judicial review of the Commission decision but he had
to show individual concern since Decision had been
addressed to German authorities and not to him.
184.108.40.206 Test was whether any of us
could in theory become
clementine importers. Hence
Plaumann was a group that
anybody could join.
220.127.116.11 If people affected by measure belong to a closed
class, it may be sufficient to establish indiv
concern. It is now clear that being a member of
closed class is insufficient, UNLESS defendant
institution was obliged to take it into account.
2.3.2 Closed Class
18.104.22.168 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission (1985): Closed class
+ obligation of adopting institution to consider
members of class since comm had been
acting under greek act of accession
22.214.171.124 Buralux and others v council (1996): court
dismissed as inadmissible a challenge to
council regulation on movement of waste.
Held, applicants affected in same way as
anyone involved in waste trf b/w states.
Distinguished from P-P as council not
obliged to take into acct -ve effects
126.96.36.199 Commission v Nederlandse Antillen (2003) :
tightening of test. Applicant must show that they
were affected by the act in a way that differentiated
them from everyone else affected
188.8.131.52 Codorniu v Council (1994): Applicant was
individually concerned since the word
"cremant" had been used and trademarked
since 1924 but new regulation would have
prevented it from doing so.
184.108.40.206 Highly restrictive; preventing applicants
adversely affected by Union measures
from effective judicial redress.
220.127.116.11.1 Greenpeace and others
2.4 Standing and Interest groups
2.4.1 Plaumann benefits trading interests over groups
representing public interests such as the
environment, or the consumer
2.4.2 Greenpeace: 3 env campaigning groups and several indivs resident
on the Canary Islands challenged the legality of a series of
Commission decisions granting aid to assist the construction of 2
power stations. Held, neither the associations or indivs had standing.
2.5 Regulatory acts of direct concern which
do not entail implementing measures
2.5.1 UPA (2002): Spanish trade association representing the
interests of Spanish farmers, sought Judicial Review of a
1998 Council regulation which abolished many forms of
financial aid to olive oil farmers and producers.
Impossible to challenge before Spanish courts. Held,
Dismissed, UPA lacked standing.
18.104.22.168 Court of justice did not follow advice of AG, insisted
on force of Plaumann formula. Opinion of AG Jacobs
therefore only seen as a critique of the existing law
22.214.171.124 Court acknowledged that indivs were entitled to effective
judicial protection of rights under union law but
emphasised that treaty provided various means by which
validity of union acts could be challenged. Action for
annulment not only way, but prelim rulings could too
126.96.36.199.1 Specific duty on national courts. national courts were
required 'so far as possible, to interpret and apply national
procedural rules governing the exercise of rights of action'
in a way that enabled claimants to challenge national
measures applying Union acts of general application.
2.5.2 Jégo-Quéré (2002): fishing and size of
mesh in trawler nets. Strict existing test
should be reconsidered and set out a new
more relaxed test, bold move by general
court. clearly inconsistent with case law.