Case C-263/02 P

Commission of the European Communities

v

Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA

(Appeal – Admissibility of an action for annulment of a regulation brought by a legal person)

Summary of the Judgment

1. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of acts of the institutions – Measures of general application – Need for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a plea of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity – Obligation for national courts to apply national procedural rules in a way that enables the legality of Community acts of general application to be challenged – Availability of an action for annulment before the Community Court in the event of an insurmountable obstacle at the level of national procedural rules – Excluded

(Arts 10 EC, 230, fourth para, EC, 234 EC and 241 EC)

2. 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)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of hake and associated conditions for the control of activities of fishing vessels – Absence of any particular legal status for an operator with regard to the adoption of that regulation – Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para, EC; Commission Regulation No 1162/2001)

1. By Articles 230 EC and Article 241 EC, on the one hand, and by Article 234 EC, on the other, the Treaty has established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to ensure 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.

Thus it is for the Member States to establish a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the right to effective judicial protection.

In that context, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 10 EC, national courts are required, so far as possible, to interpret and apply national procedural rules governing the exercise of rights of action in a way that enables natural and legal persons to challenge before the courts the legality of any decision or other national measure relative to the application to them of a Community act of general application, by pleading the invalidity of such an act.

However, it is not appropriate for an action for annulment before the Community Court to be available to an individual who contests the validity of a measure of general application, such as a regulation, which does not distinguish him individually in the same way as an addressee, even if it could be shown, following an examination by that Court of the particular national procedural rules, that those rules do not allow the individual to bring proceedings to contest the validity of the Community measure at issue. Such an interpretation would require the Community Court, in each individual case, to examine and interpret national procedural law. That would go beyond its jurisdiction when reviewing the legality of Community measures.

Accordingly, an action for annulment before the Community Court should not on any view be available, even where it is apparent that the national procedural rules do not allow the individual to contest the validity of the Community measure at issue unless he has first contravened it.

In that regard, the fact that a regulation applies directly, without intervention by the national authorities, does not mean that a party who is directly concerned by it can only contest the validity of that regulation if he has first contravened it. It is possible for domestic law to permit an individual directly concerned by a general legislative measure of national law which cannot be directly contested before the courts to seek from the national authorities under that legislation a measure which may itself be contested before the national courts, so that the individual may challenge the legislation indirectly. It is likewise possible that under national law an operator directly concerned by a regulation may seek from the national authorities a measure under that regulation which may be contested before the national court, enabling the operator to challenge the regulation indirectly.

(see paras 30-35)

2. Although the condition that a natural or legal person can bring an action challenging a regulation only if he is concerned both directly and individually must be interpreted in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection by taking account of the various circumstances that may distinguish an applicant individually, such an interpretation cannot have the effect of setting aside the condition in question, expressly laid down in the Treaty. The Community Courts would otherwise go beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Treaty.

That applies to the interpretation of the condition in question to the effect that a natural or legal person is to be regarded as individually concerned by a Community measure of general application that concerns him directly if the measure in question affects his legal position, in a manner which is both definite and immediate, by restricting his rights or by imposing obligations on him.

Such an interpretation has the effect of removing all meaning from the requirement of individual concern set out in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

(see paras 36-38)

3. In the absence of a provision of Community law requiring the Commission, when adopting a given regulation, to follow a procedure under which an operator is entitled to claim rights that might be available to it, including the right to be heard, that operator is not given any particular legal status with regard to the adoption of that regulation. The fact that the operator was the only one to propose, before the regulation was adopted, a particular solution for the achievement of the objective pursued by that regulation does not make it individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC

(see paras 47-48)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 1 April 2004 (1)

(Appeal – Admissibility of an action for annulment of a regulation brought by a legal person)

In Case C-263/02 P,

applicant,

APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 3 May 2002 in Case T-177/01

the other party to the proceedings being:

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

composed of C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges,

Advocate General: F. G. Jacobs,

after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 22 May 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 July 2003,

gives the following

Arguments of the parties

Assessment by the Court

Arguments of the parties

Asssessment by the Court

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

hereby:

Gulmann

Cunha Rodrigues

Puissochet

Schintgen

Macken

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 1 April 2004.

R. Grass

V. Skouris

Registrar

President of the Sixth Chamber