Order — ECLI:EU:C:1999:389
Date: 1999-09-07
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Monetary measures in the field of agriculture;Sugar
Concepts: Costs
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal;Application as to costs - unfounded
Origin: Sweden

Summary of the O r d e r 
Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern 
to them — Regulation fixing a specific agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector — No rate 
fixed for the new Member States — Action by a grower and a growers' association in Sweden — 
Inadmissible 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Commission Regulation No 1734/95) 
An action brought by a sugar beet grower 
seeking the annulment of Regulation 
N o 1734/95 fixing, for the 1994/95 market­
ing year, the specific agricultural conversion 
rate applicable to the minimum sugar beet 
prices and the production levy and addi­
tional levy in the sugar sector is inadmissible 
in so far as that regulation does not fix a 
I - 7531 
SUMMARY — CASE C-409/96 P 
conversion rate applicable to Sweden, the 
Member State from which the grower in 
question comes. 
That regulation is of general application and 
the non-fixing of a specific agricultural con­
version rate applicable to sales of sugar beet 
during the period in question by growers 
established in Austria, Finland and Sweden 
was, in that regulation, justified in an objec­
tive and uniform manner for those three 
countries, without taking account of the spe­
cific situation of certain growers in those 
countries. A measure does not forfeit its leg­
islative nature either because it may be pos­
sible to define more or less precisely the 
number or identity of those to whom it 
applies or by the fact that it may have differ­
ent specific effects for those to whom it 
applies, as long as it is established that such 
application takes effect by virtue of an objec­
tively determined situation. 
Nor are the conditions satisfied which would 
allow the applicant to be regarded as being 
individually concerned by the regulation, 
since he is not affected in his legal position 
by reason of circumstances in which he was 
differentiated from all other persons and dis­
tinguished individually, just like an 
addressee, since he is concerned only in his 
objective capacity as a grower within the 
sugar sector in the same way as any other 
grower within that sector. 
An application for annulment of that regu­
lation brought by an association of sugar 
beet growers is also inadmissible since, in the 
absence of special circumstances such as the 
role which it could have played in the pro­
cedure leading to the adoption of the meas­
ure in question, such an association is not 
entitled to bring an action where its mem­
bers may not do so individually, the defence 
of common interests not being sufficient in 
that regard. 
Finally, it does not appear that the inadmis­
sibility of their action for annulment 
deprives the applicants of all right of 
recourse against the possible consequences of 
a measure such as the contested regulation, 
since, in the first place, it has not been estab­
lished that the validity of such a measure 
cannot be challenged in domestic proceed­
ings in which a reference for a preliminary 
ruling, as provided for under Article 177 of 
the Treaty, may be made, and, second, if they 
consider themselves to have suffered damage 
flowing directly from that measure, they 
may challenge that measure in proceedings 
for non-contractual liability under Articles 
178 and 215. 
I - 7532