Case C-409/96 P

Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Sven Åke Henrikson

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Common agricultural policy — Agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector — Appeal clearly unfounded’

Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 18 December 1997 I-7533

Summary of the Order

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation fixing a specific agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector — No rate fixed for the new Member States — Action by a grower and a growers' association in Sweden — Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Commission Regulation No 1734/95)

An action brought by a sugar beet grower seeking the annulment of Regulation No 1734/95 fixing, for the 1994/95 marketing year, the specific agricultural conversion rate applicable to the minimum sugar beet prices and the production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector is inadmissible in so far as that regulation does not fix a conversion rate applicable to Sweden, the Member State from which the grower in question comes.

That regulation is of general application and the non-fixing of a specific agricultural conversion rate applicable to sales of sugar beet during the period in question by growers established in Austria, Finland and Sweden was, in that regulation, justified in an objective and uniform manner for those three countries, without taking account of the specific situation of certain growers in those countries. A measure does not forfeit its legislative nature either because it may be possible to define more or less precisely the number or identity of those to whom it applies or by the fact that it may have different specific effects for those to whom it applies, as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objectively determined situation.

Nor are the conditions satisfied which would allow the applicant to be regarded as being individually concerned by the regulation, since he is not affected in his legal position by reason of circumstances in which he was differentiated from all other persons and distinguished individually, just like an addressee, since he is concerned only in his objective capacity as a grower within the sugar sector in the same way as any other grower within that sector.

An application for annulment of that regulation brought by an association of sugar beet growers is also inadmissible since, in the absence of special circumstances such as the role which it could have played in the procedure leading to the adoption of the measure in question, such an association is not entitled to bring an action where its members may not do so individually, the defence of common interests not being sufficient in that regard.

Finally, it does not appear that the inadmissibility of their action for annulment deprives the applicants of all right of recourse against the possible consequences of a measure such as the contested regulation, since, in the first place, it has not been established that the validity of such a measure cannot be challenged in domestic proceedings in which a reference for a preliminary ruling, as provided for under Article 177 of the Treaty, may be made, and, second, if they consider themselves to have suffered damage flowing directly from that measure, they may challenge that measure in proceedings for non-contractual liability under Articles 178 and 215.