Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 —

Ackermann Saatzucht and Others v Parliament and Council

(Joined Cases C‑408/15 P and C‑409/15 P) ( 1 )

(Appeals — Action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Right to bring an action — Locus standi — Act of individual concern to natural or legal persons by reason of ‘certain attributes which are peculiar to them’ — Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 — Measures concerning compliance by users in the Union with the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Limitation of the effects of Community plant variety rights — Breeders’ exemption)

1. Appeals—Grounds—Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256(1) second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)( d) and 169(2)) (see paras 19, 20)

2. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Person individually affected by a measure general in character—Conditions—Regulation imposing information obligations on users of genetic resources—Action by acquirers of protected varieties, claiming exemption from any information obligation by virtue of another regulation—No restricted category of economic operators—Not individually concerned—Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 511/2014, Art. 4(3)(b); Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 15) (see paras 30, 31, 38-40)

3. Appeals—Grounds—Inadequate statement of reasons—Admissibility—Scope of the obligation to state reasons—Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning—Lawfulness—Conditions (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81) (see para. 43)

4. Fundamental rights—Right to effective judicial protection—Limits—Compliance with the conditions governing the admissibility of an action—Action for the annulment of an EU act, presupposing the adoption of national measures, declared inadmissible by the General Court—No infringement of the right to effective judicial protection—Possibility of requesting the national court to make a reference for a preliminary ruling (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 49-52)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG, Böhm-Nordkartoffel Agrarproduktion GmbH & Co. OHG, Deutsche Saatveredelung AG, Ernst Benary, Samenzucht GmbH, Freiherr Von Moreau Saatzucht GmbH, Hybro Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG, Klemm + Sohn GmbH & Co. KG, KWS Saat AG, Norddeutsche Pflanzenzucht Hans-Georg Lembke KG, Nordsaat Saatzuchts GmbH, Peter Franck-Oberaspach, P.H. Petersen Saatzucht Lundsgaard GmbH, Saatzucht Streng — Engelen GmbH & Co. KG, Saka Pflanzenzucht GmbH & Co. KG, Strube Research GmbH & Co. KG, Gartenbau und Spezialkulturen Westhoff GbR, W. von Borries-Eckendorf GmbH & Co. KG, ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV, Agriom BV, Agrisemen BV, Anthura BV, Barenbrug Holding BV, De Bolster BV, Evanthia BV, Gebr. Vletter & Den Haan VOF, Hilverda Kooij BV, Holland-Select BV, Könst Breeding BV, Koninklijke Van Zanten BV, Kweek- en Researchbedrijf Agirco BV, Kwekerij de Wester-Bouwing BV, Limgroup BV, Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Het Idee BV to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.