Case C‑456/13 P

T & L Sugars Ltd

and

Sidul Açúcares Unipessoal Lda

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Action for annulment — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Right to bring an action — Locus standi — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Act of individual concern to the appellants — Right to effective judicial protection — Exceptional measures relating to the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the European Union market — Marketing year 2010/2011’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 28 April 2015

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Act of a general nature of individual concern — Conditions — Implementing Regulation No 393/2011 — Individual situation of undertakings not taken into account when regulation was adopted — Not of individual concern

Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Judicial review of acts of the Union — Procedures — Protection of that right by the European Union Courts or the national courts according to the nature of the contested act — Possibility of using actions for annulment or references for a preliminary ruling on validity

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts not entailing implementing measures — Meaning — Regulations No 302/2011 and No 393/2011 — Production of effects through the intermediary of acts taken by the national authorities — Acts constituting implementing measures

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Regulations No 222/2011 and No 293/2011 — Action brought by undertakings which do not have the status of producers of sugar and whose legal situation is not directly affected by those regulations — Inadmissibility

See the text of the decision. (see paras 29-32)

Since, first, the appellants do not have the status of producers of sugar and their legal situation is not directly affected by EU regulations adopted by way of exceptional measures relating to the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the European Union market and, second, those regulations do not directly affect their legal situation, those regulations are not of direct concern to them within the meaning of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. It follows that, as the General Court did not examine whether the above regulations were of direct concern to the appellants and as it based its finding that the action was inadmissible on the fact that those regulations entailed implementing measures within the meaning of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, it made an error of law. However, given that those regulations are not of direct concern to the appellants within the meaning of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the error of law made by the General Court is not such as to entail the setting aside of the judgment under appeal as regards the inadmissibility of the action against those regulations. (see paras 37-39)

Since Regulations No 302/2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year and No 393/2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences produce their legal effects vis-à-vis the appellants only through the intermediary of acts taken by the national authorities following the submission of applications for certificates on the basis of Regulation No 302/2011, the decisions of the national authorities granting such certificates, which apply the coefficients fixed by Regulation No 393/2011 to the operators concerned, and the decisions refusing such certificates in full or in part constitute implementing measures within the meaning of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. That conclusion is not called into question by the allegedly mechanical nature of the measures taken at national level, since that criterion is irrelevant in that respect. (see paras 40-42)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 43-50)