Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2001:302
Date: 2001-05-31
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Sugar
Concepts: Appeals;Applications by natural or legal persons
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments 
submitted to the Court of First Instance — Failure to identify the alleged error of 
law — Inadmissibility — Limits — Plea alleging that the Court of First Instance 
transposed the reasoning applicable in another case to the case appealed — 
Admissibility of the appeal 
(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, 
first para.; Rides of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) 
I - 4239 
SUMMARY — CASE C-41/99 P 
2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal — Measures of direct and 
individual concern to them — Regulation abolishing adjustment aid for producers 
of sugar and sugar beet — Action brought by sugar beet processing and beet sugar 
production establishments — Inadmissible 
(EC Treaty Art. 173, fourth para, (now Art. 230, fourth para); EC Council Regulation 
No 2613/97 Art. 2) 
1. It follows from Article 168a of the 
Treaty (now Article 225 EC), the first 
paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute 
of the Court of Justice and Arti­
cle 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure 
that an appeal must indicate precisely 
the contested elements of the judgment 
or order which it is requested to have 
set aside and also the legal arguments 
which specifically support that request. 
That requirement is not satisfied by an 
appeal which, without even including 
an argument specifically identifying the 
error of law allegedly vitiating the 
contested order, confines itself to 
repeating or reproducing word for 
word the pleas in law and arguments 
previously submitted to the Court of 
First Instance, including those based on 
facts expressly rejected by that Court. 
Such an appeal amounts in reality to no 
more than a request for re-examination 
of the application submitted to the 
Court of First Instance, which the 
Court of Justice does not have jurisdic­
tion to undertake. 
However, the fact that the arguments 
and pleas in law relating to the condi­
tions governing the admissibility of an 
action for annulment brought by legal 
or natural persons had already been 
raised in the same terms at first 
instance cannot constitute grounds for 
their inadmissibility in the appeal pro­
ceedings in which the appellants chal­
lenge the reasoning of the Court of 
First Instance quite specifically, in 
accusing it of transposing to the case 
which is the basis for the appeal the 
grounds and reasoning applicable in 
the action for annulment brought by 
sugar beet producers in respect of the 
same provision, and failing to respond 
to any of the specific arguments raised 
by them to the effect that, as sugar beet 
processing and beet sugar production 
undertakings, they are directly and 
individually concerned by that provi­
sion. 
(see paras 16-19) 
2. The action brought by owners of sugar 
beet processing and beet sugar produc­
tion establishments for annulment of 
Article 2 of Regulation No 2613/97, 
which abolishes all adjustment aid to 
I - 4240 
SADAM ZUCCHERIFICI AND OTHERS V COUNCIL 
producers of sugar and sugar beet from 
the 2001/02 marketing year, is inad­
missible. 
First of all, the provision is a measure 
of general application as it applies to 
an objectively determined situation and 
entails legal effects for categories of 
persons regarded generally and in the 
abstract. Secondly, the fact that, when 
Regulation No 2613/97 entered into 
force, the appellants were its only 
actual addressees as producers of beet 
sugar in the region in which they 
operate is, not in itself sufficient for 
them to be regarded as individually 
concerned by the regulation. The gen­
eral applicability, and thus the legisla­
tive nature, of a measure are not called 
into question by the fact that it is 
possible to determine more or less 
exactly the number or even the identity 
of the persons to whom it applies at 
any given time, as long as it applies to 
them by virtue of an objective legal or 
factual situation defined by the mea­
sure in question in relation to its 
purpose. The abolition of aid under 
Article 2 of Regulation No 2613/97, 
however, applies generally and for an 
indeterminate period to all the eco­
nomic operators concerned. 
(see paras 25, 29-30) 
I - 4241