Order — ECLI:EU:T:1995:185
Date: 1995-11-07
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Sugar
Concepts: Application for interim measures: suspension of operation of the contested measure and other interim measures
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - unfounded
Origin: Italy

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. Furthermore, it is not for the Community judicature to substitute its own assessment for that of the applicant and itself determine which measures are capable of adversely affecting the applicant and open to an action for annulment (Case 30/68 Lacroix v Commission [1970] ECR 301, paragraphs 22 and 24). The claims in question must therefore be declared inadmissible. The applicants' standing to bring the action (second plea) 38. Under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, the admissibility of an application for the annulment of a regulation introduced by a natural or legal person is subject to the condition that the contested regulation is in reality a decision which concerns that person directly and individually. The criterion for distinguishing between a regulation and a decision must be sought in the generalapplication or otherwise of the measure in question. An act has general application if it applies to objectively determined situations and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract (order in Case C-87/95 P Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori (CNPAAP) v Council [1996] ECR I-2003, paragraph 33; judgment in Case T-482/93 Weber v Commission [1996] ECR II-609, paragraph 55; and order in Case T-39/98 Sadam Zuccherifici and Others v Council [1998] ECR II-4207, paragraph 17). 39. In the present case the fixing by Article 1(f) of the contested regulation of the derived intervention price for white sugar 'for all the areas in Italy for the 1995/96 marketing year requires the Italian intervention agency, pursuant to Article 9(1) of the basic regulation, to buy in at that price any white sugar offered to it by the Italian production undertakings provided that the conditions laid down for that purpose are met. Article 1(f) therefore applies to an indeterminate number of transactions to be carried out during the marketing year concerned. Pursuant to Article 3(1) in conjunction with Article 5(3) and Article 6(1) and (2) of the basic regulation, the fixing of the derived intervention price is also passed directly on to the purchase prices which Italian sugar manufacturers are required to pay to Italian beet growers under the contracts for the supply of beet concluded for the same marketing year. The provision in question is therefore also applicable to an indeterminate number of transactions downstream from the intervention operations. It follows that Article 1(f) of Regulation No 1534/95 applies to objectively determined situations and is aimed generally at categories of persons regarded in the abstract. 40. However, it cannot be excluded that a provision which by its nature and application is general in character may individually concern natural or legal persons where it adversely affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and thereby distinguish them individually in the same way as the person to whom a measure is addressed (Case C-209/94 P Buralux and Others v Council [1996] ECR I-615, paragraph 25). 41. In the present case it should be observed that Article 1(f) of the contested regulation fixes a specific and single derived intervention price for all the production areas in Italy, which is applicable, in accordance with the mechanism described above, to Italian sugar manufacturers in their relations with the intervention agency and also in their relations with beet growers. Furthermore, the statement that a deficit supply situation was to be foreseen in the areas of Italy necessarily resulted from a comparison of the production figures provided by the Italian sugar-producing undertakings, including the applicants, and the figures for national consumption. In order to determine whether those elements are sufficient for the applicants to be regarded as being individually concerned, the provision inquestion must be placed in the context of the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector. 42. In that regard, it should be pointed out that Article 3(1) of the basic regulation provides that for white sugar an intervention price for the non-deficit areas of the Community and a derived intervention price for each of the deficit areas are to be fixed each year. Pursuant to that provision, the Council adopted Article 1(a) to (f) of Regulation No 1534/95 for the 1995/96 marketing year, under which all areas of the United Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal, Finland, Spain and Italy are classified as deficit areas. 43. In the context of that 'regionalisation of the price system (see paragraph 4 above), the Community legislature, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the common organisation of the markets, endeavours to take account of the specific features of the various production areas which form the market as a whole. The fact that the legislature fixes the derived intervention prices for white sugar not in a standard and general manner but on a basis as close as possible to economic realities, thus aiming, as stated in point 3 of the third recital in the preamble to the basic regulation, to 'stabilise the market in sugar, is not in itself sufficient to confer on Article 1(f) of the contested regulation the nature of a bundle of decisions of individual concern to each of the sugar-producing undertakings established in the deficit areas. The system of 'regionalisation applies objectively to all sugar manufacturers and beet growers; it is not aimed at the applicants individually. 44. In that regard, the applicants' argument that they provided the Community institutions with their production figures before the contested regulation was adopted is irrelevant. The Court observes that the system of 'regionalisation is necessarily based on the production figures of each sugar-producing undertaking in a deficit or non-deficit area. The various production areas in the Community can only be classified by the Council as deficit or non-deficit on the basis of the information on current and/or foreseeable production and consumption provided to it. In that regard, Regulation No 787/83 requires each Member State to communicate certain information 'in respect of each sugar-producing undertaking situated on its territory (Article 9(1)). The fact that the applicants communicated such information to the Community institutions is therefore not capable of distinguishing them, in the context of the system of 'regionalisation, from all other Community sugar producers, especially since, as is apparent from the papers before the Court, the Council did not adopt the contested regulation on the basis of the information provided by the Commission on the specific situation of each of the applicants. 45. The Court further observes, in any event, that if the applicants' argument were upheld any sugar manufacturer established in any deficit area would be able to challenge the classification of that area as a deficit area and thus call in question the annual fixing of the derived intervention price and, accordingly, refuse to paythe beet growers a higher purchase price. Conversely, beet producers established in any of the non-deficit areas would be able to challenge the classification of their area as a non-deficit area and thus call in question the annual fixing of the intervention price and, accordingly, obtain a higher purchase price from the sugar manufacturers. Thus all economic operators belonging to the common organisation of the market in sugar who considered that they were adversely affected by the classification of their area would be able to call in question the entire system of differentiated prices applied throughout the Community, which would be contrary to the regulatory nature of the measures adopted by the Council for that purpose. 46. Nor can the applicants' argument that they are 'individually concerned by the contested measure by reason of the fact that they belong to a 'limited class be upheld. First, even supposing that the Council had actually been aware of the applicants' identity when it adopted the contested regulation, it is settled law that the general application and hence the legislative nature of a measure are not called in question by the fact that it is possible to define more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at any given time, 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 (order in Case C-409/96 P Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Henrikson v Commission [1997] ECR I-7531, paragraph 37). 47. Second, as observed above, the 'limited class to which the applicants refer is the consequence of the very nature of the system of 'regionalisation, which, because it is based on the information mechanism provided for in Regulation No 787/83, has the precise consequence that the Community institutions are able to know the identity of the sugar manufacturers established in each production area. The applicants therefore form part of a 'limited class only in the same way as all other Community sugar manufacturers in the same situation. 48. In any event, as the Council observed at the hearing without being contradicted by the applicants, while it is the case that before the various prices for sugar are fixed for each marketing year the Member States communicate to the Commission information on developments in sugar production and consumption in their territory and on the sugar production quotas already allocated, when the Council adopted the contested regulation it nevertheless did not have any particular information on each of the Italian undertakings holding sugar production quotas for the 1995/96 marketing year but fixed the various prices for white sugar on the basis of the overall figures on sugar production in Italy. 49. Nor is the case-law on which the applicants rely in support of the admissibility of their action relevant in the present case. That case-law refers to certain specific situations concerning individual applications for import licences which were submitted during a short period and related to specific quantities (see Töpfer and Weddel) or involving the obligation imposed on the Community institutions to takeaccount of the consequences which the measure they propose to adopt will have on the situation of certain individuals (see Sofrimport and Piraiki-Patraiki). There are no such circumstances in the present case. In particular, the applicants have not alleged that the Council is under an obligation to afford the Italian sugar-producing undertakings, in the context of the 'regionalisation system, a particularly wide protection exceeding the purpose of 'regionalisation itself, which consists in taking into consideration the specific features of each production area and thus the interests of all sugar manufacturers and all beet growers in the Community (see also Buralux, paragraphs 32 to 34). 50. The applicants also claim that the contested measure adversely affected the individual production rights which they enjoy as holders of production quotas allocated pursuant to the basic regulation (Codorniu v Council and Weber v Commission). 51. In that regard, it is sufficient to observe that the allocation of production quotas to the applicants was not, prior to the adoption of the contested regulation, accompanied by an established right that a specific intervention price would be fixed. The applicants' legal situation was therefore no different from that of other holders of production quotas, all of whom had to adjust to the intervention prices fixed by the Council in accordance with the supply situation foreseeable for the various production areas. In those circumstances, the mere fact that the applicants held production quotas is not susceptible of establishing that specific rights, within the meaning of Codorniu v Council, which they enjoyed were infringed, especially since they have not alleged that the contested measure had the effect of devaluing their quotas. 52. The arguments which the applicants derive from the alleged abolition, by Regulation No 1101/95, of the possibility for the Italian State to grant aid to the Italian sugar production industry, a possibility which had initially been provided for in Article 46 of the basic regulation, must also be rejected. Even supposing that that abolition is the result of the adoption of that regulation, it none the less remains that that circumstance, too, is incapable of sufficiently differentiating the applicants' position from that of any other operator in the sugar sector. It is clear, moreover, that the applicants have failed to adduce factors capable of showing that they were in a specific situation such that the alleged abolition of aid to the Italian sugar industry by Regulation No 1101/95 was not of general application but was aimed at them individually. 53. The same applies to the fact that the applicants had concluded supply contracts with beet growers which were governed by the derived intervention price at issue. The applicants have not alleged that they were unable to perform their specific contracts owing to the application of the contested measure and that a specific legal situation was thus adversely affected. The conclusion of such contracts can therefore only be regarded as coming within the normal commercial activity of any sugar-producing undertaking. 54. It follows that the applicants are not individually concerned by Article 1(f) of Regulation No 1534/95. The second plea of inadmissibility must therefore be upheld. 55. It follows from all the foregoing that the application must be dismissed as inadmissible. Costs 56. Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if these have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful and the Council asked for costs, the applicants must be ordered jointly and severally to pay their own costs and also those incurred by the Council in connection with the present case, including the costs associated with the application for interim measures (see paragraph 11 above). In accordance with Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission must bear its own costs. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible; 2. Orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay, in addition to their own costs, all the costs incurred by the Council in connection with the present case, including those associated with the application for interim measures; 3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. Vesterdorf Pirrung Vilaras Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 8 July 1999. H. Jung B. Vesterdorf Registrar President 1: Language of the case: Italian.