Order — ECLI:EU:C:2001:363
Date: 2001-06-28
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;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Order 
1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments before the 
Court of First Instance — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissiblity 
(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of 
Procedure of the Court of justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) 
I - 5007 
SUMMARY — CASE C-351/99 P 
2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and 
individual concern to them — Provision fixing the amount of compensation for sugar 
storage costs in respect of a particular marketing year — Action brought by Italian 
sugar manufacturers — Inadmissible 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para, (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., 
EC); Council Regulation No 1534/95, Art. 4) 
1. It follows from Article 225 EC and the 
first paragraph of Article 51 of the 
Statute of the Court of Justice and from 
Article 112(1)(c) of its Rules of Proce­
dure that an appeal must indicate 
precisely the contested elements of the 
judgment or order and also the legal 
arguments specifically supporting the 
claim for it to be set aside. That 
requirement is not satisfied by an 
appeal which, without even including 
an argument specifically identifying the 
error of law allegedly vitiating the 
contested judgment, confines itself to 
reproducing the pleas in law and argu­
ments 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 submit­
ted to the Court of First Instance, 
which the Court of Justice does not 
have jurisdiction to undertake. 
(see paras 35-36) 
2. The fact that it is possible to define 
more or less precisely the number or 
even the identity of the persons to 
whom a measure applies does not 
imply that the latter must be regarded 
as being individually concerned by that 
measure as long as it is established that 
such application takes effect by virtue 
of an objective situation of fact or of 
law defined by the measure in question. 
Thus Article 4 of Regula t ion 
No 1534/95, which fixes the amount 
of the reimbursement to compensate 
for storage costs for the 1995/96 mar­
keting year, is not of individual concern 
to Italian sugar manufacturers holding 
production quotas. First, that provision 
fixes the amount of reimbursement for 
all sugar manufacturers in the same 
way and, in particular, regardless of the 
classification of the area in which they 
are established. Second, the amount of 
I - 5008 
ERIDANIA V COUNCIL 
reimbursement is not fixed on the basis 
of the quotas allocated only to Italian 
sugar producer undertakings or of the 
figures from the appellants, but is 
established on the basis of financing 
costs, insurance costs and specific sto­
rage costs, in accordance with the sixth 
recital in the preamble to Regulation 
No 1534/95. 
(see paras 46, 49-51) 
I - 5009