Order — ECLI:EU:C:2002:265
Date: 2002-04-25
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Transport
Concepts: Appeals;Applications by natural or legal persons
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: United Kingdom;Provisional data;United States

Summary of the Order 
1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and 
individual concern to them — Regulation laying down the conditions under which 
information may be supplied from computerised reservation systems — Action by 
vendors of computerised reservation systems — Inadmissible 
(Art. 230 EC, fourth para; Council Regulation No 2299/89, Art. 6(l)(b)(v), as 
amended by Regulation No 323/1999) 
2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissible — 
Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of factual evidence put before the 
Court of First Instance — Excluded unless the sense of evidence has been distorted 
I - 4025 
SUMMARY — CASE C-96/01 P 
1. The possibility of determining more or 
less precisely the number, or even the 
identity, of the persons to whom a 
measure applies by no means implies 
that it must be regarded as being of 
individual concern to them as long as it 
is established that that application 
takes effect by virtue of an objective 
legal or factual situation defined by the 
measure in question. In that regard, 
Article 6(l)(b)(v) of Regulation 
No 2299/89, inserted by Regulation 
No 323/1999, on a code of conduct 
for computerised reservation systems 
which lays down the conditions under 
which a system vendor may supply 
statistical or other information from its 
computerised reservation system is of 
concern to the appellants in their 
objective capacity as 'system vendor', 
in the same way as any other current or 
future system vendor in the same 
position and the other traders on the 
relevant market, such as airlines or 
subscribers who were also covered by 
the provision by reason of their objec­
tive capacity. For that reason, the 
provision is drafted in general and 
abs t rac t terms by Regulat ion 
No 2299/89, as amended by Regu­
lation No 323/1999, that is to say, it 
defines the categories of traders to 
which it applies, without reference to 
the specific situation of certain traders. 
Moreover, the fact that a measure may 
have different specific effects on the 
various persons to whom it applies is 
not inconsistent with its nature as a 
regulation when that situation is objec­
tively defined. 
(see paras 38-39, 41) 
2. The appraisal by the Court of First 
Instance of the evidence put before 
it — such as evidence relating to the 
question whether the appellants were 
affected by the contested provision by 
reason of a collection of attributes 
which differentiate them from any 
other trader to whom the provision 
applies, or whether serious con­
sequences resulted from the implemen­
tation of the provision in question, 
which were such as to distinguish them 
from any other trader to whom it 
applied — does not constitute, save 
where the clear sense of that evidence 
has been distorted, a point of law 
which is subject, as such, to review by 
the Court of Justice in an appeal. 
(see paras 46-47, 55-56) 
I - 4026