Order — ECLI:EU:T:2005:51
Date: 2005-02-16
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment;Waste
Concepts: Applications by natural or legal persons;Right to a judicial remedy
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the order 1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision confirming a Member State’s exceeding of the recycling and recovery targets referred to in Article 6(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 94/62 – Action by an undertaking handling household packaging waste – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62) 2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope – Obligation of the Member States to establish a complete system of legal remedies and procedures enabling the right to effective judicial protection to be guaranteed – Availability of an action for annulment before the Community Court in the event of an insurmountable obstacle at the level of national procedural rules – Not included (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) 3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned – Not permissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) 1. A Commission decision confirming a Member State’s exceeding of the recovery and recycling targets referred to in Article 6(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste, which are imposed on all packaging materials and packaging waste, is not of individual concern to an undertaking handling household packaging waste which has obtained prior approval from the national authorities. First, the decision in question is of concern to the applicant only in its objective capacity as an economic operator in the packaging sector, in the same way as any other economic operator actually or potentially in the same situation. Second, the applicant’s significant share of the household packaging market, the fact that its principal activity is the collection and recovery of household packaging waste and the fact that, therefore, the amount and probability of any fine would be greater than for other operators do not establish that the contested decision is of individual concern to it. The economic consequences which an applicant claims to suffer because of a contested provision, even if the author of the measure was aware of them, are not, in themselves, sufficient to distinguish the applicant individually with regard to a general rule. Third, the fact that the Commission has based its decision on the existence of obligations specific to the applicant and on information relating to it is sufficient to distinguish it individually only if the regard had to its situation results from the relevant legislation. That would be the case, first, if the Commission, by virtue of specific provisions, had a duty to take account of the consequences of a measure it envisaged adopting on the situation of certain individuals, with the result that that fact may distinguish them individually and, second, if the relevant provisions provided for a right for the person concerned to participate in the pre-litigation procedure. Fourth, unless there is an express provision in that respect, neither the process of preparing acts of general application nor those acts themselves, as measures of general application, require, by virtue of the general principles of Community law, the participation of the persons affected, their interests being deemed to be represented by the political bodies called upon to adopt those acts. Therefore, the applicant cannot infer from the principle of sound administration a procedural right capable of giving rise to an entitlement to sue for annulment. (see paras 51-52, 55, 61, 70-71) 2. Whilst it is for the Member States to establish a complete system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure observance of the right to effective judicial protection, an interpretation of the rules on admissibility laid down in Article 230 EC, to the effect that an action for annulment should be declared admissible where it is shown, following an examination by the Community judicature of the particular national procedural rules, that those rules do not allow an individual to bring proceedings to contest the validity of the Community measure at issue, is not acceptable. A direct action for annulment cannot be brought before the Community judicature even if it could be shown, following an examination by it of the particular national procedural rules, that those rules do not allow an individual to bring proceedings to contest the validity of the Community measure at issue. Such an approach would require the Community judicature in each individual case to examine and interpret national procedural law, which would go beyond its jurisdiction when reviewing the legality of Community measures. (see para. 76) 3. Although the condition under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC requiring an individual interest must be interpreted in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection by taking account of the various circumstances that may distinguish an applicant individually, such an interpretation cannot have the effect of setting aside the condition in question, expressly laid down in the Treaty, without going beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Treaty on the Community judicature. (see para. 77)