Case T‑312/14

Federazione nazionale delle cooperative della pesca (Federcoopesca) and

Others

v

European Commission

‛Action for annulment — Fisheries — Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy — Commission decision establishing an action plan to overcome shortcomings in the Italian fisheries control system — Act that does not, in itself, alter the applicant’s legal situation — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 7 July 2015

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Criteria — Commission decision implementing, pursuant to Regulation No 1224/2009, an action plan for overcoming shortcomings in an national fisheries control system — Action by an association of fishermen — No procedural guarantees in its favour — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility

The admissibility of an action for annulment brought by an association set up to promote the collective interests of a class of persons depends, without prejudice to its own interest in bringing proceedings, on the question whether its members could have brought that action individually. (see para. 18)

The third limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU can only apply, in the light of both the objective of that provision and the fact that the framers of the Treaty appended an additional condition relating to the absence of implementing measures to the condition of direct concern, to challenges to acts covered by the first of the two situations which includes the condition of direct concern, being that relating to acts which, in themselves, in other words irrespective of any implementing measures, alter the applicant’s legal situation. Consequently, where the disputed act does not, in itself, alter the applicant’s legal situation, that finding is sufficient to conclude that the third limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU is inapplicable, without it being necessary, in those circumstances, to determine whether the act entails implementing measures in respect of the applicant. (see paras 42, 43)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 33-36)

By Article 102(4) of Regulation No 1224/2009, establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, the Council simply empowered the Commission to draw up, together with the competent national authorities, an action plan comprising a set of measures taken at national level by these authorities, and then to make the plan binding on them. It does not therefore follow from that provision that the Commission has the power to adopt unilateral acts that are directly applicable to persons pursuing business activities in the fisheries sector of a Member State. Accordingly, a decision adopted under Article 102(4) of Regulation No 1224/2009 does not, in itself, in other words irrespective of any implementing measures, alter the legal situation of any natural or legal person other than the Member State to which it refers. In particular, it does not in itself alter the legal situation of persons pursuing business activities in the fisheries sector. Accordingly, an applicant is not justified in invoking the third limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU for the purpose of having its action declared admissible. That finding is made without it being necessary to determine whether the contested decision is a ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the third limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. Nor is it necessary to examine whether such a decision entails implementing measures in respect of the applicants or their members, an examination which would require the Court to consider the position of the person pleading the right to bring proceedings under that provision and not the position of other persons. Furthermore, a decision such as that adopted under Article 102(4) of Regulation No 1224/2009 cannot impose obligations on an individual and may therefore not be relied upon as such against an individual. (see paras 46, 47, 52, 55, 56, 59)

The principle of interpreting national law in conformity with EU law has certain limits. Thus, the obligation on a national court to refer to the content of a directive when interpreting and applying the relevant rules of domestic law is limited by general principles of law and it cannot serve as the basis for an interpretation of national law contra legem. (see para. 60)

Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may only claim to be individually concerned if the decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed. 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 that measure is applied by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question. Accordingly, an action by a national association of fishermen against a Commission decision adopted under Article 102(4) of Regulation No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, concerning the establishment of an action plan to overcome shortcomings in a national fisheries control system, is inadmissible. In the first place, such a decision is of concern to the applicants’ members only in their objective capacity as fishermen, in the same way as any other economic operator actually or potentially in the same situation. In the second place, no provision of EU law requires the Commission, when adopting the said decision, to follow a procedure under which the applicants or their members would be able to claim rights that might be available to them. EU law has accordingly not conferred any particular legal status on operators such as the applicants or their members with regard to the adoption of the contested decision. It follows that the contested decision does not apply to a closed circle of persons who were known at the time of its adoption and whose rights the Commission intended to regulate. (see paras 63, 64, 66, 68, 69)