An association which represents the interests of the European steel manufacturing industry is, as a rule, entitled to bring an action for annulment against a Commission decision determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community only if the undertakings which it represents or some of those undertakings themselves have standing or if it can prove an interest of its own.

Natural or legal persons other than the person to whom a measure is addressed can claim to be individually concerned, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, only if they are affected by the measure in question by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee.

Consequently, an action for annulment brought by an association representing the interests of the European steel manufacturing industry against a Commission decision determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community is inadmissible.

The fact that the undertakings which that association represents are operators of stationary installations referred to in Chapter III of Directive 2003/87 cannot distinguish them since, as regards the provisions of the contested decision, they are only concerned by that decision by reason of their objective capacity as operators of those installations, in the same way as any other trader which is currently or potentially in the same situation.

The same applies as regards the procedural guarantees provided to those undertakings in the fifth subparagraph of Article 10a(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 10a(2) of Directive 2003/87. The fact that a person participates in the process by which a European Union measure is adopted does not distinguish him individually with regard to the measure in question unless provision has been made under the European Union rules for procedural guarantees in his favour. Where a provision of European Union law requires that, for the purposes of adopting a decision, a procedure must be followed in respect of which a natural or legal person may assert rights, such as the right to be heard, the special legal position which that person enjoys has the effect of distinguishing him individually within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. However, it must be pointed out that a person or entity enjoying such a procedural right will not, as a rule, where there is any type of procedural guarantee, have standing to bring proceedings contesting the legality of a Community act in terms of its substantive content. The precise scope of an individual’s right of action against a Community measure depends on his legal position as defined by EU law with a view to protecting the legitimate interests thus afforded him.

Although it is clear from the fifth subparagraph of Article 10a(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 10a(2) of Directive 2003/87 that the undertakings represented by the applicant, as relevant stakeholders within the meaning of those provisions, had a right to be heard by the Commission and that the Commission was therefore required to consult them on the principles referred to in those provisions prior to the adoption of the contested decision, the pleas in law raised by the applicant in support of its action for annulment of the contested decision do not concern an alleged breach of the obligation to consult. In so far as the applicant seeks in the present case not to protect its procedural rights but to challenge the legality of the contested decision in terms of its substantive content, those undertakings are not individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

(see paras 30-36, 38, 39)