62024TO0392_RES
Case T‑392/24
Raf VerbekeandElias Vlerick
v
European ParliamentandCouncil of the European Union
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 26 November 2024
(Action for annulment – Regulation (EU) 2024/1263 – Regulation (EU) 2024/1264 – Directive (EU) 2024/1265 – Legislative act – Act entailing implementing measures – Lack of direct concern – Manifest inadmissibility – Request for ‘constitutional dialogue’ with the Cour constitutionnelle (Constitutional Court, Belgium) – Clear lack of jurisdiction)
Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Any act of general application other than legislative acts – Regulations 2024/1263 and 2024/1264 – Regulations adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and the special legislative procedure, respectively – Not included
(Arts 263, 4th para., and 289(1) to (3) TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2024/1263; Council Regulation 2024/1264)
(see paragraphs 8-12)
Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Acts that are of direct and individual concern to them – Direct concern – Criteria – Binding legal effects directly affecting the applicant’s legal situation – None – Manifest inadmissibility
(Art. 263, 4th para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2024/1263, Art. 1(1) and (2); Council Regulation 2024/1264; Council Directive 2024/1265, recital 8)
(see paragraphs 17-25, 27-29)
Résumé
Hearing an action for annulment, which it dismisses as manifestly inadmissible, the General Court provides clarification on the standing of ordinary applicants to bring such an action, under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, against legal acts of the European Union which are not addressed to them and, more specifically, on the condition of direct concern.
That action was directed against Regulations 2024/1263 (
1
) and 2024/1264 (
2
) and against Directive 2024/1265 (
3
) (together, ‘the contested acts’), which seek to reform the European Union’s economic governance framework in the light of the objectives of budgetary discipline and sustainability of the debt of the Member States.
In the alternative, the applicants had requested the General Court to conduct a ‘constitutional dialogue’ with the Cour constitutionnelle (Constitutional Court, Belgium) on the implementation by the Belgian authorities of the contested acts, requesting that it reject that claim on the ground that it clearly lacked jurisdiction.
Findings of the Court
As a preliminary point, the Court recalls that the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU distinguishes three situations in which an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person may be declared admissible, namely an action against an act addressed to him or her or which is of direct and individual concern to him or her or, in the case of a regulatory act, if that act is of direct concern to him or her and does not entail implementing measures.
First of all, the Court points out that, since the applicants are not the addressees of the contested acts, they do not have a right of action under the first situation referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
Next, as regards the third situation that it examines at the outset, the Court specifies that the expression ‘regulatory act’ does not include legislative acts, namely acts which are adopted in accordance with the procedures referred to as the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’ and the ‘special legislative procedure’. (
4
)
In that regard, it notes, first, that Regulations 2024/1263 and 2024/1264 were adopted in accordance with the ordinary and special legislative procedures, respectively, and are therefore not regulatory acts and, second, that the materialisation of the legal effects of Directive 2024/1265 in relation to the applicants requires implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, namely national transposition measures amenable to judicial review before the national courts.
It concludes that the applicants do not have a right of action against the contested acts under the third situation referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
Last, as regards the second situation referred to in that article, the Court emphasises that the first head of claim seeking annulment of the contested acts can be declared admissible only in so far as the applicants are directly and individually concerned by the contested acts.
In that regard, it states that, in order for an ordinary applicant to be directly concerned by the act which is the subject of the action, two cumulative criteria must be met. First, the contested measure must directly affect that applicant’s legal situation and, second, it must leave no discretion to its addressees who are entrusted with the task of implementing it.
As regards the first of those conditions, according to settled case-law, the action for annulment provided for in Article 263 TFEU is available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their form, which are intended to have binding legal effects. In order to determine whether an act produces such effects and may, accordingly form the subject matter of such an action, it is necessary to examine the substance of that act and to assess its effects in the light of objective criteria, such as the content of the said act, taking into account, as appropriate, the context in which it was adopted and the powers of the institution which adopted the act. Accordingly, whether an act is capable of directly affecting the legal situation of a natural or legal person cannot be assessed with regard solely to the fact that that act takes the form of a directive.
In the case at hand, the Court notes that the contested acts seeking to reform the European Union’s economic governance framework in the light of the objectives of budgetary discipline and sustainability of the debt of the Member States, apply to the Member States, in so far as they provide for an economic governance framework for them, in particular rules relating to national fiscal-structural plans, to the excessive deficit procedure of Member States which have adopted the single currency and to the budgetary frameworks of the Member States in order to avoid excessive government deficits.
Consequently, the contested acts are not capable of directly affecting the applicants’ own legal situation. That conclusion is moreover confirmed by the applicants’ claims in the application, since they do not identify any specific provision of the contested acts capable of affecting their legal situation or any concrete legal effect on that situation. In particular, any effects of the contested acts on the management and rights of a public entity, such as the City of Ghent (Belgium), cannot constitute effects which directly affect their legal situation.
The Court concludes that, since the condition of direct concern is not satisfied, the applicants do not have standing to bring an action for annulment of the contested acts under the second situation referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the applicants’ first head of claim as manifestly inadmissible, in that the applicants cannot base their standing to bring an action for annulment of the contested acts on any of the situations referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
(
1
)	Regulation (EU) 2024/1263 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2024 on the effective coordination of economic policies and on multilateral budgetary surveillance and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 (OJ L 2024/1263).
(
2
)	Council Regulation (EU) 2024/1264 of 29 April 2024 amending Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (OJ L 2024/1264).
(
3
)	Council Directive (EU) 2024/1265 of 29 April 2024 amending Directive 2011/85/EU on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States (OJ L 2024/1265).
(
4
)	By virtue of Article 289(1) and (3) TFEU.