WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/97 by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1997)

Subject: Appeals before the Court of First Instance

Can the Council explain why, whenever an individual appeals to the Court of First Instance requesting that a regulation adopted by the Council or Commission (except in cases involving anti-dumping issues or state aids) be annulled, the Community institutions automatically and systematically, without fail, raise an objection of inadmissibility against such an appeal?

Can the Council indicate how many such appeals there have been and in what percentage of cases has no objection been raised?

Does the Council not consider that such repeated instances on the part of the Community institutions could result in the absurd situation of a Community which, while assuming ever greater legislative powers by means of directly applicable acts, puts more obstacles in the way of individuals wishing to have access to justice and defend their rights by means of the only judicial bodies competent to rule on the legality of Community acts which may be detrimental to those individuals?

Does the Council consider that this attitude is consistent with the right of each individual to have access to an impartial, independent court in order to uphold his or her rights, as enshrined in the constitutions of all the Member States and in particular in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Answer (27 May 1997)

In reply to the question from the Honourable Member, the Council states that, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty, a natural or legal person may institute proceedings only against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, "is of direct and individual concern to the former¨. Under the case-law of the Court of Justice "persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may only claim to be individually concerned if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason or cirumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed¨ (judgement of 15 July 1993, Case 25/62: Plaumann v. Commission, Reports of Cases before the Court 1963, page 201).

Once an appeal is lodged against a regulation, the Council must request the Court to rule on the admissibility of appeals by natural or legal persons, without initiating the substantive discussion. It is not for the Council to amend the system of appeals which was conceived by the authors of the Treaties. It is for the Court, possibly, to reject the objection of inadmissability entered by the Council if it considers it be contrary to the Treaties.

Moreover, a direct appeal under Article 173 is not the only means available to an individual under the EC Treaty for challenging the legality or applicability of a Community regulation.

- Article 177 enables a court or tribunal to obtain a decision from the Court of Justice on the validity of Community acts which it is required to apply. Thanks to this procedure, individuals may obtain a Court ruling on the invalidity of provisions which they do not have the capacity to attack directly pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 173.

- Other means are available under Article 184 of the EC Treaty, which enables any party, notwithstanding the expiry of the period laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 173 and in proceedings in which a Community regulation is at issue, to plead the grounds specified in the second paragraph of Article 173 in order to invoke before the Court of Justice the inapplicability of that regulation.