Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation establishing criteria for calculating aid for olive oil producers – Action brought by olive oil producers and producer associations – Measure of general application – Applicants not individually concerned – Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members – Whether admissible – Conditions

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Interpretation, contra legem, of the requirement of being individually concerned – Not permissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

1. An action for annulment brought by olive oil producers and producer associations in respect of points (7), (11) and (20) of Article 1 of Regulation No 864/2004 amending Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and of the annex thereto, is inadmissible.

In so far as the contested provisions of Regulation No 864/2004 set out, in general and abstract terms, the criteria for calculating aid in the olive oil sector, without any account whatsoever being taken of the specific circumstances of each olive oil producer, they constitute in their entirety, by their nature and scope, measures of general application, not decisions within the meaning of Article 249 EC.

Furthermore, the applicants are affected by the contested provisions by reason specifically of an objective factual situation, that is to say, they – as producers themselves or, in the case of associations, through their members – produced olive oil during the reference period and received aid under one of the aid schemes established by the legislation. That situation is defined in terms of the very purpose of the regulation containing the contested provisions: the introduction of a new aid scheme in the olive oil sector. The fact that the contested provisions may have a particular effect on certain olive oil producers – and, more specifically, the effect of excluding them from entitlement to aid because of the criteria laid down for calculating it – cannot automatically divest the contested provisions of their general application, since they apply to all the economic operators concerned who are in the same objectively determined factual or legal situation. The fact that certain traders are economically more affected by a measure than the other traders in the same sector is not sufficient for them to be regarded as individually concerned by that measure.

Similarly, the fact that the Council was informed of the applicants’ position, before the adoption of the contested provisions, by the competent national authorities and by the Commission, cannot single the applicants out in relation to those provisions where it has not been established that the Council is obliged under a provision of Community law to take special account of their position, with regard to the conditions for being granted the aid in question.

(see paras 38-39, 41, 43-44, 54, 62)

2. Actions brought by associations are recognised as admissible in three types of situation: first, where a legal provision expressly confers on professional associations a number of powers of a procedural nature; secondly, where the association represents the interests of undertakings which themselves have locus standi; and, thirdly, where the association is differentiated by reason of the impact on its own interests as an association, in particular because its position as a negotiator has been affected by the measure of which annulment is sought.

(see para. 64)

3. Although the condition relating to individual concern, laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, must be interpreted in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection, account being taken of the various circumstances that may distinguish an applicant individually, such an interpretation cannot have the effect of setting aside the condition in question, which was expressly laid down in the Treaty, without going beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Treaty on the Community Courts.

Furthermore, while it is admittedly possible to envisage a system of judicial review of the legality of Community measures of general application different from the system which was established by the founding Treaty and the principles of which have never been amended, it is for the Member States, if necessary, in accordance with Article 48 EU, to reform the system currently in force.

(see paras 73-74)