Order — ECLI:EU:T:2017:6
Date: 2017-01-12
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Application to intervene - decision unnecessary
Origin: France

Summary — Order of the General Court (First Chamber), 12 January 2017 1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Decision on State aid — Action by an association responsible for protecting the collective interests of its members — Individual concern — Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) 2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts entailing implementing measures or not — Concept — Court remedies available against such measures – Plea of illegality or reference for a preliminary ruling to assess the validity of the regulatory acts comprising implementing measures (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU) 1. Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects them by virtue of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and thus distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person to whom the decision is addressed. An association which is responsible for protecting the collective interests of its members could be regarded as individually concerned by a final decision of the Commission on State aid in two sets of circumstances, namely, first, if it can prove an interest of its own, in particular because its position as a negotiator has been affected by the act of which annulment is sought, or, secondly, where its members or some of them themselves have locus standi. (see paras 21, 22) 2. The concept of regulatory acts which do not entail implementing measures, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, must be interpreted in the light of that provision’s objective, which consists in preventing an individual from being obliged to infringe the law in order to have access to a court. Where a regulatory act directly affects the legal situation of a natural or legal person without requiring implementing measures, that person could be denied effective judicial protection if he did not have a direct legal remedy before the European Union judicature for the purpose of challenging the legality of the regulatory act. Natural or legal persons in that situation, although directly concerned by the act in question, would be able to obtain a judicial review of that act only after having infringed its provisions, by pleading that those provisions are unlawful in proceedings initiated against them before the national courts. On the other hand, where a regulatory act entails implementing measures judicial review is ensured. Where responsibility for the implementation of a regulatory act lies with the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union, natural or legal persons are entitled to bring a direct action before the European Union judicature against the implementing acts under the conditions stated in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, and to plead in support of that action, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, the illegality of the basic act at issue. Where the implementation of a regulatory act is a matter for the Member States, natural or legal persons may challenge the validity of the national implementing measure before a national court or tribunal and, in those proceedings, plead the invalidity of the basic act at issue and cause that court or tribunal to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU. (see paras 38-41)