CELEX: 62004TO0094
Language: en
Date: 2005-11-28 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 28 November 2005. # European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Others v Commission of the European Communities. # Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility - Directive 2003/112/EC - Standing to bring proceedings. # Case T-94/04.

Case T-94/04
      European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Others
      v
      Commission of the European Communities
      (Action for annulment – Objection of inadmissibility – Directive 2003/112/EC – Standing to bring proceedings)
      Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 28 November 2005 
      Summary of the Order
      1.     Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Directive concerning
            the placing of plant protection products on the market – Actions by associations having special consultative status with Community
            institutions and/or with national or supranational authorities – Inadmissibility
      (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Directive 2003/112)
      2.     European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope – Need
            for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a plea of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity
            
      (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC)
      1.     An action for annulment brought by associations whose goal is to promote the protection and the conservation of the environment
         and by a company whose goal is to promote sustainable alternatives to pesticides against Directive 2003/112 amending Directive
         91/414 to include the active substance paraquat is inadmissible.
      
      The adverse effects the contested act has on the interests defended by the associations and on the property rights of one
         of them do not establish that they are individually concerned by that act, since the provisions thereof affect them in their
         objective capacity as entities active in the protection of the environment, in the same manner as any other person in the
         same situation.
      
      Moreover, the fact that the applicants have special advisory status with the European institutions and/or with national or
         supranational authorities does not in itself establish that they are individually concerned by the contested act. The fact
         that a person participates, in one way or another, in the process leading to the adoption of a Community act does not distinguish
         him individually in relation to the act in question unless the relevant Community legislation has laid down specific procedural
         guarantees for such a person.
      
      Likewise, the standing conferred on the applicants in some of the legal systems of the Member States is irrelevant for the
         purposes of determining whether they have standing to bring an action for annulment of a Community act pursuant to the fourth
         paragraph of Article 230 EC.
      
      Moreover, the fact that, in the statement of reasons for a regulation proposal, the Commission states that the applicants
         have standing does not exempt them from the requirement of having to prove that they are individually concerned by the contested
         act. The principles governing the hierarchy of norms preclude secondary legislation from conferring standing on individuals
         who do not meet the requirements of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. A fortiori the same holds true for the statement
         of reasons of a proposal for secondary legislation.
      
      (see paras 53, 55-58, 66-68)
      2.     By Article 230 EC and Article 241 EC, on the one hand, and by Article 234 EC, on the other, the EC Treaty has established
         a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to ensure judicial review of the legality of acts of the institutions,
         and has entrusted such review to the Community courts. Under that system, where natural or legal persons cannot, by reason
         of the conditions for admissibility laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, directly challenge Community measures
         of general application, they are able, depending on the case, either indirectly to plead the invalidity of such acts before
         the Community courts under Article 241 EC or to do so before the national courts and ask them, since they have no jurisdiction
         themselves to declare those measures invalid, to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on validity.
      
      (see para. 62)
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)
      28 November 2005 (*)
      
      (Action for annulment – Objection of inadmissibility – Directive 2003/112/EC – Standing to bring proceedings)
      In Case T-94/04,
      European Environmental Bureau (EEB), established in Brussels (Belgium), 
      
      Pesticides Action Network Europe, established in London (United Kingdom),
      
      International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), established in Geneva (Switzerland),
      
      European Federation of Trade Unions in the Food, Agricultural and Tourism sectors and allied branches (EFFAT), established in Brussels,
      
      Stichting Natuur en Milieu, established in Utrecht (Netherlands),
      
      Svenska Naturskyddföreningen, established in Stockholm (Sweden), 
      
      represented by P. van den Biesen, G. Vandersanden and B. Arentz, lawyers,
      applicants,
      v
      Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Doherty, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
      
      defendant,
      supported by 
      Syngenta Ltd,  established in Guildford (United Kingdom), represented by C. Simpson, Solicitor, and D. Abrahams, Barrister,
      
      intervener,
      ACTION for annulment of Commission Directive 2003/112/EC of 1 December 2003 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include
         paraquat as an active substance (OJ 2003 L 321, p. 32),
      
       
      THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCEOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Second Chamber),
      
      composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges, 
      Registrar: E. Coulon,
      makes the following
      Order
       Legal framework
       Directive 91/414/EEC
      1       Article 4 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market
         (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) lays down the conditions and general procedure applicable to the granting, review and withdrawal of
         authorisations of plant protection products. Article 4(1)(a) of that directive provides that only products the active substances
         of which are listed in Annex I thereto may be authorised.
      
      2       The conditions required for the purposes of including active substances in Annex I are laid down in Article 5 of Directive
         91/414. Inclusion is possible only if, in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it may be expected that
         plant protection products containing the active substance in question will fulfil certain conditions relating to lack of harmful
         effects for human and animal health and for the environment.
      
      3       Article 8(2) of the directive provides that, by way of derogation from Article 4, the Member States may, for a provisional
         period, authorise the placing on the market in their territory of plant protection products containing active substances not
         listed in Annex I that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of the directive, that is, 26 July
         1993.
      
      4       The active substances contained in the products covered by the derogation provided for by Article 8(2) of the directive are
         examined gradually as part of a programme of work by the Commission.
      
       Regulation No 3600/92
      5       Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation
         of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 (OJ 1992 L 366, p. 10) provides
         that the Commission is to draw up the list of active substances to be assessed and designate a rapporteur Member State for
         the assessment of each active substance.
      
      6       It follows from Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 3600/92 that the Member State designated as rapporteur must assess the active
         substance in question and send the Commission a report of its assessment of the dossier, including a recommendation to include
         the active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414 or to take other measures, such as the removal of the substance from the
         market.
      
      7       The Commission then refers the dossier and the report for examination to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal
         Health established by Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January
         2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and
         laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).
      
      8       Article 7(3A) of Regulation No 3600/92, added by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1199/97 of 27 June 1997 amending Regulation
         No 3600/92 (OJ 1997 L 170, p. 19), provides that the Commission is to present to the Committee a draft text which may take
         several forms. If the proposal is to include the active substance in Annex I to the Directive, it will be a draft directive.
         If the text envisages negative measures against the active substance, including the withdrawal of the authorisations of plant
         protection products containing that substance, the Commission may propose a draft decision addressed to the Member States.
      
       Background to the case
      9       There are six applicants. The first is the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), an association under Belgian law, the formal
         goal of which, according to its statutes, is inter alia to promote the protection and the conservation of the environment
         within the context of the countries of the European Union. The EEB participates in various consultative bodies of the Commission,
         in particular the Standing Group on Plant Health and the Advisory Committee on Agriculture and the Environment. It is also
         a member of the European Habitats Forum and, in that capacity, has the status of stakeholder and observer in connection with
         Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L
         206 p. 7).
      
      10     The second applicant, Pesticides Action Network Europe, is a company under the law of England and Wales, the goal of which
         is to promote sustainable alternatives to pesticides. It took part in the Stakeholders’ Conference on the Development of a
         Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, organised by the Commission on 4 November 2002.
      
      11     The third applicant, the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’
         Associations (IUF), is an international federation of national unions representing workers employed in various fields, including
         the agricultural and plantation sectors. According to its statutes, the IUF’s goals include defending the general and specific
         interests of the workers of all countries employed in the sectors within its competence. The IUF belongs to the European Trade
         Union Confederation, recognised by the European Union as the only representative cross-sectoral trade union organisation at
         European level.
      
      12     The European Federation of Trade Unions in the Food, Agricultural and Tourism sectors and allied branches (EFFAT) is an association
         under Belgian law and is one of the regional branches of the IUF. The EFFAT participates in various consultative bodies of
         the Commission, including the Standing Group on Plant Health and the Advisory Committee on Agriculture and the Environment.
      
      13     The fifth applicant, Stichting Natuur en Milieu (‘Natuur en Milieu’), is a foundation under Netherlands law whose goals, according
         to its statutes, include ‘giving a voice to things which are voiceless’ and ensuring vital nature and a healthy environment
         for current and future generations. The foundation is a member of the EEB.
      
      14     The sixth applicant, Svenska Naturskyddföreningen (‘Naturskyddföreningen’), is an association under Swedish law whose goals,
         according to its statutes, include mobilising public opinion and influencing decision-making in matters of nature conservation
         and environmental protection and working towards protection and care of areas of natural interest. Naturskyddföreningen also
         owns a farm, Osaby, in southeastern Sweden, the agricultural activities of which are guaranteed to be completely organic.
         According to the applicants, the location of Osaby and the very exclusive biotopes that are preserved there make it a perfectly
         suitable habitat for amphibians such as the Triturius cristatus  and Rana arvalis,  which are protected under Directive 92/43.
      
      15     In July 1993, a number of undertakings, including Syngenta Ltd, notified the Commission of their wish to have paraquat included
         in Annex I to Directive 91/414.
      
      16     Point 83 of Annex I to Regulation No 3600/92 refers to paraquat as one of the substances coming under the first phase of the
         Commission’s programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414.
      
      17     Commission Regulation (EC) No 933/94 of 27 April 1994 laying down the active substances of plant protection products and designating
         the rapporteur Member States for the implementation of Regulation No 3600/92 (OJ 1994 L 107, p. 8) designated the United Kingdom
         of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the rapporteur Member State for paraquat.
      
      18     On 31 October 1996 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland submitted the relevant assessment reports and
         recommendations to the Commission pursuant to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 3600/92. That assessment report was reviewed
         by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.
      
      19     On 12 June 2003, the EEB, Pesticides Action Network Europe and Naturskyddföreningen called on the European Ministers for the
         Environment and the Commission not to include paraquat in Annex I to Directive 91/414. Moreover, on 25 September 2003, the
         EFFAT made the same request to the members of the European institutions.
      
       The contested act 
      20     On 1 December 2003, the Commission adopted Directive 2003/112/EC amending Directive 91/414 to include paraquat as an active
         substance (OJ 2003 L 321 p. 32) (‘the contested act’).
      
      21     Article 1 of, and the annex to, the contested act add paraquat to Annex I to Directive 91/414. The annex to the contested
         act also provides that paraquat may be used only as a herbicide and that certain techniques for spreading products containing
         paraquat are forbidden.
      
      22     Article 2 of the contested act provides inter alia that Member States were to adopt and publish by 30 April 2005 at the latest
         the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the contested act. They were to inform the Commission
         thereof immediately and apply those provisions from 1 May 2005.
      
      23     Article 3 of the contested act requires the Member States inter alia to review the authorisation for each plant protection
         product containing paraquat in order to ensure that the conditions relating to that active substance, set out in Annex I to
         Directive 91/414, are complied with.
      
      24     The first paragraph of Article 4 of the contested act provides that Member States are to ensure that the authorisation holders
         report at the latest on 31 March 2008 on the effects of risk-mitigation measures to be applied through a stewardship programme
         and on the implementation of advances in paraquat formulations. That position also states that Member States are to submit
         this information without delay to the Commission. The second paragraph of Article 4 of the contested act states that the Commission
         is to submit to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health a report on the application of the contested act,
         indicating whether the requirements for Annex I inclusion continue to be satisfied, and may propose any amendment, including
         if necessary the withdrawal from that annex, that it deems necessary.
      
      25     Article 5 of the contested act sets 1 November 2004 as the date of entry into force of that measure.
      26     Lastly, Article 6 states that the contested act is addressed to the Member States.
       Procedure and forms of order sought
      27     By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 27 February 2004, the applicants brought the present
         action.
      
      28     By separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 18 May 2004, the defendant raised an objection
         of inadmissibility pursuant to Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. The applicants lodged
         their observations on that objection on 30 July 2004.
      
      29     By document lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 9 June 2004, Syngenta Ltd applied for leave to intervene
         in the present proceedings in support of the defendant. By order of 14 October 2004, the President of the Second Chamber of
         the Court of First Instance allowed that intervention. The intervener did not lodge its statement in intervention within the
         prescribed time-limit.
      
      30     The applicants claim that the Court should:
      –       annul the contested act;
      –       order the Commission to pay the costs.
      31     The defendant contends that the Court should:
      –       dismiss the action as inadmissible;
      –       order the applicants to pay the costs.
       Law
      32     Under Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure, if a party so requests, the Court of First Instance may rule on inadmissibility
         without hearing argument on the substance of the case. In accordance with Article 114(3), the remainder of the proceedings
         is to be oral, unless the Court decides otherwise. The Court finds in this case that it has sufficient information from the
         documents in the file and that it is not necessary to open the oral procedure.
      
       The plea of inadmissibility relating to the nature of the contested act
      33     The Commission submits that in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC there is no mention of the possibility for a natural
         or legal person to challenge a directive. Accordingly, in asking the Court to annul the contested act, the applicants are
         asking the Community judicature to disregard the precise wording of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. The action against
         the contested act is, in any event, inadmissible because directives are legislative in nature.
      
      34     The Court finds that, contrary to the Commission’s submission, although the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC makes no express
         provision regarding the admissibility of actions brought by private persons for the annulment of a directive, that fact in
         itself is not sufficient for such actions to be declared inadmissible (see order in Case T-321/02 Vannieuwenhuyze-Morin v Parliament and Council [2003] II‑1997, paragraph 21 and case-law cited). The Community institutions cannot exclude, merely by the choice of the
         form of the act in question, the judicial protection afforded to individuals under that provision of the Treaty (see order
         in Case T-84/01 Association contre l’heure d’été v Parliament and Council [2002] ECR II‑99, paragraph 23 and case-law cited).
      
      35     Likewise, the Commission is incorrect in maintaining that the legislative nature of the contested act precludes its being
         challenged through an action for annulment brought by individuals. It follows from the case-law that, in certain circumstances,
         even a legislative act applying to the generality of traders concerned may be of direct and individual concern to some of
         them (Case C-358/89 Extramet Industrie v Council [1991] ECR I‑2501, paragraph 13; Case C-309/89 Codorniu v Council [1994] ECR I‑1853, paragraph 19; Case C‑451/98 Antillean Rice Mills v Council [2001] ECR I‑8949, paragraph 46; Case T-43/98 Emesa Sugar v Council [2001] ECR II‑3519, paragraph 47).
      
      36     In those circumstances, it is appropriate to reject the plea of inadmissibility relating to the nature of the contested act.
       The plea of inadmissibility relating to the applicants’ lack of standing
       Arguments of the parties
      37     The Commission denies that the applicants are directly and individually concerned by the contested act. As to whether the
         applicants are individually concerned by the contested act, it maintains that natural or legal persons cannot be individually
         concerned by a legislative act unless they are affected by it 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 of an act would be (see Case C‑263/02 P Commission v Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I‑3425, paragraph 45 and case-law cited). That is not the situation in the present case.
      
      38     The applicants maintain that they are directly and individually concerned by the contested act.
      39     As to the requirement of being individually affected, they claim, first, that they are particularly affected by the contested
         act because the activities of each of them consist in defending the higher interests which are at stake in this case, namely
         environmental protection and public health. Thus, the EEB, Natuur en Milieu and Naturskyddföreningen are active in environmental
         protection and conservation of nature, including wildlife, in the context of Directive 92/43. The IUF and EFFAT are active
         in the protection of the interests of workers, particularly agricultural workers, including their health. The contested act
         affects those interests specifically because it represents a ‘setback’ in the protection of those interests, contrary to Community
         law. They add that the contested act has an even greater impact on Naturskyddföreningen, whose property rights are at stake
         in this case.
      
      40     Second, they claim that the EEB and EFFAT have special advisory status in their respective spheres of expertise with the Commission
         and other European institutions, that Natuur en Milieu, Naturskyddföreningen and the IUF have identical status with other
         national and supranational authorities and that, in keeping with their goals as stated in their statutes, some of the applicants
         specifically requested the Commission not to include paraquat in Annex I to Directive 91/414.
      
      41     Third, they claim essentially that, under Netherlands law, Natuur en Milieu is regarded as being directly and individually
         concerned by breaches of legal rules protecting environmental and wildlife interests and that Naturskyddföreningen enjoys
         the same status under Swedish law.
      
      42     Fourth, the applicants claim that their action must be held to be admissible in the light of the principle of effective judicial
         protection, the principle of equality of arms and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
         on the application of the provisions of the Århus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making
         and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to EC institutions and bodies (COM/2003/0622 Final) (‘the Århus Regulation
         Proposal’).
      
      43     First, regarding the need to afford them effective judicial protection, the applicants submit that annulment of the contested
         act would prevent triggering a myriad of complex, lengthy and costly authorisation procedures in various Member States. They
         state that if they had to apply to the national courts, they would have to monitor possible submissions of applications for
         authorisation in all Member States, study the legal systems of the States where marketing authorisations have been applied
         for and bring proceedings before the competent national courts. Furthermore, given the principle of mutual recognition provided
         for in Article 10 of Directive 91/414, applicants wishing to object to the placing on the market of products containing paraquat
         would have to intervene in all national procedures. Lastly, they maintain that, contrary to the Commission’s assertion, it
         is not merely a question of convenience because it is in practice impossible for a national court to adjudicate on the validity
         of the contested act. It follows that, from the point of view of the effectiveness of legal remedies available to the applicants,
         they are, pursuant to Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
         (‘the ECHR’), which are applicable to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 6(2) EU, entitled to bring the present
         action before the Court of First Instance.
      
      44     Turning, next, to the principle of equality of arms, the applicants claim, first, that an action challenging the contested
         act brought by a producer of paraquat, such as Syngenta, would be declared admissible under the fourth paragraph of Article
         230 EC, as evidenced by the order in Joined Cases T‑112/00 and T‑122/00 Iberotam and Others v Commission [2001] ECR II‑97, paragraph 79. The principle of equality of arms, enshrined in Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the ECHR, requires
         that parties which are affected in opposite ways by an act adopted by the Commission have equal opportunities in respect of
         legal remedies. They add that the Court of Justice’s judgment in Joined Cases 10/68 and 18/68 Eridania and Others v Commission [1969] ECR 459, in which it was held that the fact that an individual is in competition with the addressees of the contested
         act is not sufficient to confer standing on that individual, is irrelevant to the present case, because that judgment concerned
         competitive relationships which are entirely absent from this case.
      
      45     Lastly, the applicants maintain that their action is admissible in the light of the statement of reasons in the Århus Regulation
         Proposal. In that statement of reasons, the Commission considers that it is not necessary to amend Article 230 EC to provide
         standing to European environmental protection organisations which meet certain objective criteria contained in that proposal.
         The applicants, moreover, meet those criteria, which, following the Commission’s reasoning, is sufficient to confer on them
         standing to challenge the contested act.
      
       Findings of the Court
      46     Under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC ‘[a]ny natural or legal person may … institute proceedings 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’.
      
      47     In the present case, it follows from Article 6 of the contested act that it is addressed solely to the Member States. It is
         therefore for the applicants to demonstrate inter alia that they are individually concerned by that act, of which they are
         not the addressees.
      
      48     It follows from the case-law that applicants who, as in the present case, are not the addressees of an act may not claim that
         they are individually concerned by it unless it affects them 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 of the act would be (see Case C‑50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I‑6677, paragraph 36 and case-law cited).
      
      49     It is, accordingly, necessary to consider whether, in the present case, the applicants are concerned by the contested act
         by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them or there is a factual situation which differentiates them from all other
         persons in relation to the contested act.
      
      50     In order to establish that they are individually concerned by the contested act, the applicants claim, first, that they are
         especially affected by that act due to the serious adverse effects it has on protection of the environment and workers’ health,
         in the form of a setback in the protection of those interests. In addition, Naturskyddföreningen is also specially affected
         because of the adverse effects the contested act has on its property rights.
      
      51     The Court notes, first, that the applicants do not specify how the contested act entails a setback for protection of the environment
         and workers’ health; nor do they provide any concrete evidence to support the allegation of serious adverse effects on Naturskyddföreningen’s
         property rights.
      
      52     Next, the Court observes that, in the present case, the contested act essentially amends Annex I to Directive 91/414 by referring
         in it to the active substance paraquat and by laying down the conditions for its use as an active substance (Article 1); requires
         Member States, on the one hand, to review the authorisation for each plant protection product containing paraquat and, on
         the other, to re-evaluate authorised plant protection products containing paraquat (Article 3); requires Member States to
         ensure that the authorisation holders report at the latest on 31 March 2008 on the effects of risk-mitigation measures to
         be applied through a stewardship programme and on the implementation of advances in paraquat formulations (first paragraph
         of Article 4); and requires the Commission to submit to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health a report
         on the application of the contested act, indicating whether the requirements for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414
         continue to be satisfied and to propose any amendment, including if necessary the withdrawal from that annex, that it deems
         necessary (second paragraph of Article 4).
      
      53     Irrespective of the issue of which of those provisions, in the applicants’ view, has or have serious adverse effects on the
         interests they defend in the form of a setback in the protection of those interests and a serious infringement of the property
         rights of one of them, it is clear that those provisions affect them in their objective capacity as entities active in the
         protection of the environment or workers’ health, or even as holders of property rights, in the same manner as any other person
         in the same situation. 
      
      54     It is apparent from the case-law that that capacity is not by itself sufficient to establish that the applicants are individually
         concerned by the contested act (see, to that effect, Case C‑321/95 P Greenpeace and Others  v Commission [1998] ECR I‑1651, paragraph 28, and order in Case T‑154/02 Villiger Söhne v Council [2003] ECR II‑1921, paragraph 47 and case-law cited).
      
      55     It follows from the foregoing that the alleged serious adverse effects the contested act has on the applicants’ interests
         and property rights do not establish that they are individually concerned by the contested act.
      
      56     Second, the applicants claim that the EEB and EFFAT have special advisory status with the European institutions, that Natuur
         en Milieu, Naturskyddföreningen and the IUF have similar status with national or supranational authorities and that, in accordance
         with the stated goal in their statutes, some of the applicants specifically requested the Commission not to include paraquat
         in Annex I to Directive 91/414.
      
      57     It should be borne in mind, first, that the fact that a person participates, in one way or another, in the process leading
         to the adoption of a Community act does not distinguish him individually in relation to the act in question unless the relevant
         Community legislation has laid down specific procedural guarantees for such a person (see order in Case T‑339/00 Bactria v Commission [2002] ECR II‑2287, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited). In the present case, the Community legislation applicable to the
         adoption of the contested act does not provide for any procedural guarantee for the applicants, or even for any form of participation
         by the Community advisory bodies, be they national or supranational, to which the applicants allegedly belong. Accordingly,
         neither the fact that the applicants asked the Community authorities not to include paraquat in Annex I to Directive 91/414
         nor their alleged participation in advisory bodies leads to the conclusion that they are individually concerned by the contested
         act.
      
      58     Third, as to the argument that Netherlands and Swedish law consider applicants to be directly and individually concerned by
         acts which adversely affect the interests which they defend, the Court notes that the standing conferred on those applicants
         in some of the legal systems of the Member States is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether they have standing
         to bring an action for annulment of a Community act pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC (see, to that effect,
         the order in Case T‑585/93 Greenpeace and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II‑2205, paragraph 51).
      
      59     It follows from the foregoing that Community law, as it now stands, does not provide for a right to bring a class action before
         the Community courts, as envisaged by the applicants in the present case.
      
      60     Fourth, the applicants maintain that effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR, which is
         applicable to the Community institutions pursuant to Article 6(2) EU, means that the present action must be declared admissible
         because, first, proceedings brought before national courts would be lengthy, complex and costly and, second, those courts
         are not able to rule on the questions raised in the present proceedings.
      
      61     The Court of Justice has held that the right to effective judicial protection is one of the general principles of law stemming
         from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and that that right has also been enshrined in Articles 6 and
         13 of the ECHR (Unión de Pequeños Agricultores  v Council, paragraph 48 above, paragraphs 38 and 39).
      
      62     In the same judgment, the Court of Justice stated that by Article 230 EC and Article 241 EC, on the one hand, and by Article
         234 EC, on the other, the EC Treaty has established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to ensure
         judicial review of the legality of acts of the institutions, and has entrusted such review to the Community courts. Under
         that system, where natural or legal persons cannot, by reason of the conditions for admissibility laid down in the fourth
         paragraph of Article 230 EC, directly challenge Community measures of general application, they are able, depending on the
         case, either indirectly to plead the invalidity of such acts before the Community courts under Article 241 EC or to do so
         before the national courts and ask them, since they have no jurisdiction themselves to declare those measures invalid, to
         make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on validity (Unión de Pequeños Agricultores  v Council, paragraph 48 above, paragraph 40).
      
      63     Lastly, it is apparent from the case-law that the admissibility of an action for annulment before the Community courts does
         not depend on whether there is a remedy before a national court enabling the validity of the act being challenged to be examined
         (see, to that effect, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores  v Council, paragraph 48 above, paragraph 46).
      
      64     It follows that, according to the approach taken in the case-law of the Court of Justice, the argument relating to effective
         judicial protection put forward by the applicants is not in itself sufficient to justify the admissibility of their action.
      
      65     Fifthly, the applicants maintain that their action must be declared admissible by virtue of the principle of equality of arms.
         Suffice it to note that it is apparent from the case-law that the mere fact that an applicant is affected by an act in a manner
         opposite to that in which a person entitled to bring an action for annulment of that act is affected is not sufficient to
         confer standing on that applicant (see, to that effect, Eridania and Others v Commission, paragraph 44 above, paragraph 7, and Case C-106/98 P Comité d’entreprise de la société française de production and Others v Commission [2000] ECR I-3649, paragraph 41). In those circumstances, even if the intervener did have standing to bring an action for
         annulment of the contested act, as the applicants maintain, that fact alone would not establish that the applicants meet the
         requirement of being individually concerned by the contested act or exempt them from having to prove that they meet that requirement.
      
      66     Sixthly and lastly, the applicants claim that they have standing because, first, the Commission, in the statement of reasons
         of the Århus Regulation Proposal, states that European environmental protection organisations which meet certain objective
         criteria have standing for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and, second, in the present case the applicants
         meet those objective criteria.
      
      67     The Court notes, first, that the principles governing the hierarchy of norms (see, inter alia, Case C‑240/90 Germany v Commission [1992] ECR I‑5383, paragraph 42) preclude secondary legislation from conferring standing on individuals who do not meet the
         requirements of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. A fortiori the same holds true for the statement of reasons of a proposal
         for secondary legislation.
      
      68     Accordingly, the statement of reasons relied on by the applicants does not release them from having to show that they are
         individually concerned by the contested act. Moreover, even if the applicants were acknowledged as qualified entities for
         the purposes of the Århus Regulation Proposal, it is clear that they have not put forward any reason why that status would
         lead to the conclusion that they are individually concerned by the contested act. 
      
      69     In the light of all the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicants are not individually concerned by the contested act.
         Accordingly, the action must be declared inadmissible without its being necessary to consider whether the applicants are directly
         concerned by that act.
      
       Costs
      70     Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been
         applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to pay
         the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.
      
      71     Under the third subparagraph of Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court of First Instance may order an intervener
         to bear its own costs. In the present case, the party which intervened in support of the Commission must be ordered to bear
         its own costs.
      
      On those grounds,
      THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)
      hereby orders:
      1.      The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
      2.      The applicants shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those of the Commission.
      3.      The intervener shall bear its own costs.
      Luxembourg, 28 November 2005.
      
      
               E. Coulon
            
             
            
                     J. Pirrung
            
         
               Registrar 
            
             
            
                     President
            
         *  Language of the case: English.