Order — ECLI:EU:T:1999:142
Date: 1999-07-08
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy
Concepts: Applications by natural or legal persons;General
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

Summary of the Order
1. Actions for annulment — Naturai or legal persons —Measures of direct and individual
concern to them — Regulation No 2565/95 concerning the stopping of fishing for
Greenland halibut by vessels flying the flag of a Member State — Action brought by the
owners of fishing vessels and by associations representing the collective interests of such
owners — Inadmissible
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para, (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para.,
EC); Commission Regulation No 2565/95)
II - 2301
SUMMARY — CASE T-12/96
2. Plea of illegality— Incidental plea — Where the main action is inadmissible—
Inadmissibility of the plea of illegality
(EC Treaty, Art. 184 (now Art. 241 EC))
1. The action brought by owners of fish­
ing vessels, established in a Member
State, for annulment of Regulation
No 2565/95 concerning the stopping
of fishing for Greenland halibut by
vessels flying the flag of a Member
State — by which the Commission
recorded that the 1995 Community
quota was exhausted and called a halt
to fishing for Greenland halibut in sub-
areas 2 and 3 of the North-West
Atlantic Fisheries Organisation
(NAFO) — is inadmissible.
The contested Regulation, which is
applicable erga omnes, has not affected
the applicants by reason of certain
attributes peculiar to them or by virtue
of circumstances which differentiate
them, having regard to that Regulation,
from all the other operators to whom it
may apply.
When the Community authorities
adopted the contested measure they
were not obliged to take account of the
applicants' particular circumstances.
The fact that the institution which is
the author of a measure is acquainted
with the persons concerned by it is not
in itself, regardless of whether there is a
concomitant obligation of that kind, a
factor which distinguishes a person
individually. Similarly, the mere fact
that the applicants participated, as
advisers of the Commission, in the
negotiations preceding the adoption by
the NAFO Fisheries Commission of a
total allowable catch for Greenland
halibut is not capable of distinguishing
them individually, because none of the
provisions of the applicable Commu­
nity legislation requires the Commis­
sion, before finding that the quota is
exhausted and declaring a halt to fish­
ing, to follow a procedure in which
persons of the category to which the
applicants belong would be entitled to
claim possible rights or even to be
heard.
Furthermore, the alleged effects on the
applicants' financial interests do not
differentiate them appreciably from
any other economic operator con­
cerned by the contested Regulation,
since in the last analysis that measure
has not adversely affected specific
rights held by them.
The action brought by three associa­
tions, representing the collective inter­
ests of owners of fishing vessels, for
annulment of the same Regulation is
also inadmissible. An association
formed to promote the collective inter­
ests of a category of persons cannot be
considered to be individually con­
cerned, for the purposes of the fourth
paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 230,
fourth paragraph, EC), by a measure
II - 2302
AREA COVA AND OTHERS V COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
affecting the general interests of that
category. It is not entitled, therefore, to
bring an action for annulment on
behalf of its members where they
cannot do so individually.
Although the presence of particular
circumstances, such as the role played
by an association in a procedure which
has led to the adoption of an act within
the meaning of Article 173 of the
Treaty, may establish the admissibility
of an action brought by an association
whose members are not directly and
individually concerned by that act, in
particular where its position as nego­
tiator has been affected by the act, that
is not the position where the applicant
association did not take on the role of
negotiator (which was reserved for the
contracting parties) and the relevant
legislation does not grant them any
right of a procedural nature.
2. The possibility afforded by Article 184
of the Treaty (now Article 241 EC) of
pleading the inapplicability of a regu­
lation, or of a measure of general
application forming the legal basis of
the contested implementing measure,
does not constitute an independent
right of action and recourse may be
had to it only as an incidental plea.
That provision may not be invoked in
the absence of an independent right of
action.
II - 2303