Private applicants and the action for annulment since Codorniu

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 7-52

  Arnull, Anthony ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035579961     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1005625416189     Document Type: Article

References (220)

1. Case C-358/89, [1991] ECR I-2501.
2. Para 14, emphasis added. Direct concern was not in issue in the case.
3. Para 17. For subsequent developments, see Case T-2/95, Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v. Council, [1998] ECR II-3939 (upheld on appeal in Case C-458/98 P, judgment of 3 Oct. 2000, nyr).
4. Case C-309/89, [1994] ECR I-1853.
5. See further Arnull, "Challenging EC anti-dumping regulations: The problem of admissibility", 13 ECLR (1992), 73-81, 79-80.
6. Was it perhaps intended as a riposte to A.G. Van Gerven, who had recently expressed the view that "to say that an act is a regulation by nature means at the same time that, by nature, it does not concern the applicant directly and individually"? See Case C-213/91, Abertal and Others v. Commission, [1993] ECR I-3177, 3189 (note 19).
7. See Case 25/62, Plaumann v. Commission, [1963] ECR 95.
8. See Dec. 93/350 of 8 June 1993, O.J. 1993, L 144/21.
9. Which may be regarded as a sequel to the present author's "Private applicants and the action for annulment under Article 173 of the EC Treaty", 32 CML Rev. (1995), 7-49. See also Albors-Llorens, Private Parties in European Community Law (1996), Chaps. 3 and 4.
10. See also Ward, Judicial Review and the Rights of Private Parties in EC Law (2000), pp. 225-230; Arnull, The European Union and its Court of Justice (1999), pp. 44-49.
11. See also Ward, Judicial Review and the Rights of Private Parties in EC Law (2000), pp. 225-230; Arnull, The European Union and its Court of Justice (1999), pp. 44-49.
12. Case T-161/94, [1996] ECR II-695, para 31.
13. See Case T-288/97, Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia v. Commission, judgment of 15 June 1999, nyr, para 42.
14. Ibid., para 43.
15. Case C-95/97, [1997] ECR I-1787. See also Case C-180/97, Regione Toscana v. Commission, [1997] ECR I-5245.
16. Para 4.
17. Para 6.
18. Art. 203 (ex 146) EC, first para.
19. See Usher, EC Institutions and Legislation (1998), p. 20; Arnull, Dashwood, Ross and Wyatt, Wyatt & Dashwood's European Union Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 2000), 4th ed., pp. 23-24.
20. See Usher, EC Institutions and Legislation (1998), p. 20; Arnull, Dashwood, Ross and Wyatt, Wyatt & Dashwood's European Union Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 2000), 4th ed., pp. 23-24.
21. See Case 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo v. Comune di Milano, [1989] ECR 1839. They may also be the subject of proceedings under the principle of State liability: see Case C-302/97, Konle v. Republic of Austria, [1999] ECR I-3099, paras. 61-64; Case C-424/97, Haim v. KVN, judgment of 4 July 2000, nyr, paras. 31-32.
22. Para 7.
23. See Arts. 263 (ex 198a) to 265 (ex 198c) EC.
24. See the preamble to the Treaty on European Union.
25. Para 7.
26. Sinochem Heilonjiang, supra note 11. It may also be noted that the question whether a person possesses the nationality of a Member State is determined by the national law of that State: see the declaration on nationality agreed at Maastricht; Case C-369/90, Micheletti and Others, [1992] ECR I-4239.
27. See e.g. the opening paragraph of the Commission's additional contribution to the 2000 IGC entitled "Reform of the Community Courts".
28. Supra note 12. See also Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen and Another v. Commission, judgment of 15 Dec. 1999, nyr.
29. For a detailed analysis of the case law on standing in the particular context of State aid, see Winter, "The rights of complainants in State aid cases: judicial review of Commission decisions adopted under Article 88 (ex 93) EC", 36 CML Rev. (1999), 521-568.
30. See also Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98, Netherlands Antilles v. Commission, judgment of 10 Feb. 2000, nyr.
31. Case 22/70, Commission v. Council, [1971] ECR 263, para 42.
32. See, in addition to "ERTA" itself, Case C-366/88, France v. Commission, [1990] ECR I-3571; Case C-325/91, France v. Commission, [1993] ECR I-3283; Case C-327/91, France v. Commission, [1994] ECR I-3641; Case C-57/95, France v. Commission, [1997] ECR I-1627.
33. Cf. Case C-308/95, Netherlands v. Commission, judgment of 5 Oct. 1999, nyr; Case C-443/97, Spain v. Commission, judgment of 6 April 2000, nyr.
34. Case 294/83, [1986] ECR 1339.
35. In Case 34/86, Council v. Parliament, [1986] ECR 2155, para 5, the Court observed, citing Les Verts, that "by virtue of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty an action for annulment may be brought against the acts of the European Parliament which are intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, provided that the other conditions laid down by that article are satisfied" (author's emphasis after the comma).
36. Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93, [1995] ECR II-2305, paras. 65 and 66. The CFI cited, inter alia, Extramet and Codorniu. Cf. Joined Cases T-481/93 and T-484/93, Exporteurs in Levende Varkens and Others v. Commission, [1995] ECR II-2941; Case T-398/94, Kahn Scheepvaart v. Commission, [1996] ECR II-477.
37. See e.g. Case T-178/98, Fresh Marine Company v. Commission, judgment of 24 Oct. 2000, nyr, para 45.
38. See Case 5/71, Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v. Council, [1971] ECR 975. It has been held that any of the measures described in Art. 249, not only regulations, may be considered legislative for the purposes of Art. 288(2): see Case T-390/94, Schröder and Others v. Commission, [1997] ECR II-501, para 54. The continuing applicability of the Schöppenstedt approach may be doubtful: see Case C-352/98 P, Bergaderm and Another v. Commission, judgment of 4 July 2000, nyr. However, cf. Fresh Marine Company, supra note 35, para 57.
39. See Case C-390/95 P, Antillean Rice Mills and Others v. Commission, [1999] ECR I-769, paras. 56-63 (dismissing an appeal against Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93).
40. Case 60/81, [1981] ECR 2639.
41. Case T-184/97, BP Chemicals v. Commission, judgment of 27 Sept. 2000, nyr, para 34.
42. Case T-87/96, judgment of 4 March 1999; [2000] 4 CMLR, 312.
43. Reg. 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, O.J. 1990, L 257/14.
44. Para 43.
45. Para 42.
46. Joined Cases T-125/97 and T-127/97, [2000] 5 CMLR 467.
47. Para 108.
48. Case T-138/89, [1992] ECR II-2181, para 31.
49. Case C-395/95 P, [1997] ECR I-2271. See also Case C-359/98 P, Ca' Pasta v. Commission, judgment of 25 May 2000, nyr.
50. See e.g. Case 126/83, STS v. Commission, [1984] ECR 2769.
51. Case T-185/94, Geotronics v. Commission, [1995] ECR II-2795.
52. Para 13.
53. Para 14. See further A.G. Tesauro at I-2279-2281. The Advocate General hinted that he considered the EDF case law unsatisfactory: see I-2280 (note 19).
54. The application was dismissed by the Court as unfounded.
55. I-2281.
56. On the availability of national remedies, see section 5 infra.
57. Case 113/77, NTN Toyo Bearing Co v. Council, [1979] ECR 1185, 1246.
58. Case 45/81, [1982] ECR 1129, para 18. See also A.G. Jacobs in Extramet, supra note 1, at I-2517.
59. Supra note 34, para 50. See also Case T-47/95, Terres Rouges and Others v. Commission, [1997] ECR II-481, para 43; Case T-60/96, Merck and Others v. Commission, [1997] ECR II-849, para 40; Joined Cases T-14/97 and T-15/97, Sofivo and Others v. Council, [1998] ECR II-2601, para 34; Case T-38/98, ANB and Others v. Council, [1998] ECR II-4191, para 20; Case T-194/95, Area Cova and Others v. Council, Order of 8 July 1999, para 37; Case T-12/96, Area Cova and Others v. Council and Commission, Order of 8 July 1999, para 36; Case T-11/99, Van Parys and Others v. Commission, Order of 15 Sept. 1999, para 40.
60. Supra note 34, para 183.
61. Joined Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98, [2000] 2 CMLR 1099. See also Case T-135/96, UEAPME v. Council, [1998] ECR II-2335, para 69; Case T-100/94, Michailidis and Others v. Commission, [1998] ECR II-3115, para 56; Case T-109/97, Molkerei Grossbraunshain and Bene Nahrungsmittel v. Commission, [1998] ECR II-3533, para 57 (decision upheld on appeal: see Case C-447/98 P, Order of 26 Oct. 2000).
62. The capacity of private applicants to challenge directives is considered in section 3.3 infra.
63. Para 30.
64. See e.g. UEAPME, supra note 59, paras. 64-67; Michailidis, supra note 59, paras. 51-55; Molkerei, supra note 59, paras. 47-56; Salamander, supra note 59, paras. 28-29; Case T-114/99, CSR Pampryl v. Commission, Order of 9 Nov. 1999, paras. 41-44; Case T-138/98, ACAV and Others v. Council, judgment of 22 Feb. 2000, nyr, paras. 49-57.
65. Case T-197/95, Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Henrikson v. Commission, [1996] ECR I-1283, para 29. See also Case T-472/93, Campo Ebro and Others v. Council, [1995] ECR II-421, para 36.
66. See e.g. Salamander, supra note 59, para 30: "In certain circumstances, however, even a legislative measure ..." (emphasis added).
67. See Joined Cases 16 and 17/62, Producteurs de Fruits v. Council, [1962] ECR 471, 478.
68. Case C-298/89, [1993] ECR I-3605.
69. Case C-10/95 P, [1995] ECR I-4149, paras. 31-32.
70. Case C-408/95, [1997] ECR I-6315.
71. Para 29. See also Gibraltar v. Council, supra note 66, para 16.
72. Case T-135/96, [1998] ECR II-2335, paras. 67-68. See Adinolfi, "Admissibility of action for annulment by social partners and 'sufficient representativity' of European agreements", 25 EL Rev. (2000), 165-177; Ward, op. cit. supra note 10, pp. 233-235. The Directive at issue in UEAPME was adopted under the Agreement on Social Policy annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy agreed at Maastricht and itself annexed to the EC Treaty. The Protocol and Agreement were repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam.
73. Case T-135/96, [1998] ECR II-2335, paras. 67-68. See Adinolfi, "Admissibility of action for annulment by social partners and 'sufficient representativity' of European agreements", 25 EL Rev. (2000), 165-177; Ward, op. cit. supra note 10, pp. 233-235. The Directive at issue in UEAPME was adopted under the Agreement on Social Policy annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy agreed at Maastricht and itself annexed to the EC Treaty. The Protocol and Agreement were repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam.
74. Supra note 59, paras. 27-31. Cf. Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96, BI Vetmedica and Another v. Council and Commission, judgment of 1 Dec. 1999, nyr, para 143, where the CFI dismissed as unfounded a challenge by a private applicant to a directive without ruling on an objection of inadmissibility raised by the Council.
75. For a summary of the case law, see Case T-597/97, Euromin v. Council, judgment of 20 June 2000, nyr, paras. 43-45.
76. On the relationship between anti-dumping proceedings and competition policy, see A.G. Jacobs' second Opinion in the Extramet case, [1992] ECR I-3813, 3836-3842.
77. See Reg. 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, O.J. 1996, L 56/1, Art. 14(1).
78. See e.g. Joined Cases 789 and 790/79, Calpak v. Commission, [1980] ECR 1949, para 9.
79. Cf. NTN Toyo Bearing Company, supra note 55; Joined Cases 239 & 275/82, Allied Corporation v. Commission, [1984] ECR 1005.
80. Cf. Les Verts v. Parliament, supra note 32.
81. See Les Verts v. Parliament, supra note 32; Case C-70/88, Parliament v. Council, [1990] ECR I-2041.
82. See A.G. Jacobs in Extramet, supra note 1, I-2519.
83. See e.g. Les Verts, supra note 32, para 31; Case 11/82, Piraiki-Patraiki v. Commission, [1985] ECR 207; Case T-435/93, ASPEC and Others v. Commission, [1995] ECR II-1281, paras. 60-61; Case T-442/93, AAC and Others v. Commission, [1995] ECR II-1329, paras. 45-46.
84. Case T-96/92, CCE de la Société Générale des Grandes Sources and Others v. Commission, [1995] ECR II-1213. See also Case T-12/93, CCE de Vittel and Others v. Commission, [1995] ECR II-1247; Arnull, 33 CML Rev. (1996), 319-335.
85. Case T-96/92, para 38.
86. Case T-96/92, para 40.
87. Cf. Case T-238/97, Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria v. Council, [1998] ECR II-2271, para 53.
88. Case T-96/92, para 46.
89. Case T-96/92, para 30.
90. Cf. Case 26/76, Metro v. Commission, [1977] ECR 1875; Case 191/82, Fediol v. Commission, [1983] ECR 2913. See further section 4.2.4 infra.
91. Case T-485/93, [1996] ECR II-1101.
92. See Case C-386/96 P, [1998] ECR I-2309. See also Case C-391/96 P, Compagnie Continentale (France) v. Commission, [1998] ECR I-2377; Case C-403/96 P, Glencore Grain v. Commission, [1998] ECR I-2405; Case C-404/96 P, Glencore Grain v. Commission, [1998] ECR I-2435.
93. Supra note 47.
94. Para 50 of the judgment of the CFI.
95. Para 54.
96. Para 51 of the Court's judgment.
97. Para 52.
98. Para 53.
99. I-2341. A.G. La Pergola shared the misgivings of A.G. Tesauro in Geotronics about the EDF case law: see note 54 of the former's Opinion.
100. I-2344.
101. See Case T-162/94, NMB France and Others v. Commission, [1996] ECR II-427, para 36; Joined Cases T-177 & 377/94, Altmann and Others v. Commission, [1996] ECR II-2041, para 80.
102. See Arnull, op. cit. supra note 10, pp. 534-535.
103. Supra note 59.
104. O.J. 1998, L 213/9. The Directive was quashed by the Court in Case C-376/98, Germany v. Parliament and Council, judgment of 5 Oct. 2000, nyr. See also Case C-74/99, The Queen v. Secretary of State for Health and Others, ex parte Imperial Tobacco and Others, judgment of 5 Oct. 2000, nyr.
105. It also owned the rights for tobacco products, but its application was limited to the restrictions contemplated by the Directive on the advertising of goods other than tobacco products: see para 7.
106. See Case C-129/96, Inter-Environnement Wallonie v. Région Wallonne, [1997] ECR I-7411, para 45.
107. The CFI rejected an argument by one of the applicants that it constituted an emanation of the State: see paras. 59-60.
108. Para 62.
109. Para 68.
110. Para 70.
111. Cf. NTN Toyo Bearing Company, supra note 55, para 11.
112. See Plaumann, supra note 7, 107; Craig, "Legality, standing and substantive review in Community law", 14 OJLS (1994), 507-537, 508-511.
113. See Plaumann, supra note 7, 107; Craig, "Legality, standing and substantive review in Community law", 14 OJLS (1994), 507-537, 508-511.
114. Case 26/86, Deutz und Geldermann v. Council, [1987] ECR 941, para 9.
115. In England, see e.g. R v. Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace, [1994] 4 All ER 329 and 352.
116. See Case T-585/93, [1995] ECR II-2205. See also Case T-219/95, Danielsson and Others v. Commission, [1995] ECR II-3051.
117. Case C-321/95 P, [1998] ECR I-1651.
118. At I-1689.
119. I-1699. For more detailed discussion of the circumstances in which representative bodies enjoy standing to bring annulment proceedings, see Gormley, "Public interest litigation" in O'Keeffe and Bavasso (Eds.), Judicial Review in European Union Law (Liber Amicorum in Honour of Lord Slynn of Hadley, Vol. I) (Kluwer Law International, 2000), Chap. 14. For a summary of the relevant case law, see Case T-38/98, ANB and Others v. Council, [1998] ECR II-4191, paras. 25-26; Case T-194/95, Area Cova and Others v. Council, Order of 8 July 1999, paras. 72-75; Case T-12/96, Area Cova and Others v. Council and Commission, Order of 8 July 1999, paras. 71-74. Those cases make it clear that representative bodies may exceptionally have standing even where none of their members is directly and individually concerned by the contested act.
120. Para 27. See also e.g. Case T-472/93, Campo Ebro and Others v. Council, [1995] ECR II-421; Case T-107/94, Kik v. Council and Commission [1995] ECR II-1717 (upheld on appeal: Case C-270/95 P, [1996] ECR I-1987).
121. See e.g. Case 100/74, CAM v. Commission, [1975] ECR 1393. The closed class test was sometimes used to distinguish regulations from decisions: see e.g. Joined Cases 41-44/70, International Fruit Company v. Commission, [1971] ECR 411. However, after Codorniu that distinction no longer seems relevant in relation to acts which in any event concern a closed class. See further Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law (1998), 4th ed., pp. 358-363.
122. Case T-298/94, [1996] ECR II-1531. See also Case T-482/93, Weber v. Commission, [1996] ECR II-609, paras. 63-66; Van Parys, supra note 57, para 43.
123. Para 41.
124. Para 44.
125. Case T-100/94, [1998] ECR II-3115.
126. Para 58.
127. Para 59.
128. Case T-70/94, [1996] ECR II-1741.
129. Para 41 of the judgment of the CFI.
130. The appeal was brought by France, which had not intervened at first instance, under Art. 49(3) of the EC Statute, the first time that provision had been applied.
131. See Case C-73/97 P, France v. Comafrica and Others, [1999] ECR I-185. According to A.G. Mischo, the question whether the applicants were directly and individually concerned was "undoubtedly a point of law" for the purposes of Art. 51 of the EC Statute: see I-189. However, a finding by the CFI that an applicant does not belong to a restricted group of traders particularly affected by a disputed act constitutes one of fact and cannot be challenged on appeal: see Case C-300/00 P(R), Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa and Others v. Council and Commission, Order of 12 Oct. 2000, para 44.
132. See I-202-203.
133. See para 39.
134. See Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa, supra note 127, para 46.
135. Case 11/82, [1985] ECR 207.
136. Case C-152/88, [1990] ECR I-2477.
137. The Court did not question the status of the contested measures as regulations: see Arnull, 32 CML Rev., 7-49, 36.
138. Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93, [1995] ECR II-2305, para 67.
139. Para 68.
140. Para 70.
141. Para 72.
142. Para 79. The applications for annulment were successful in part. A parallel claim for damages was dismissed.
143. Case C-390/95 P, Antillean Rice Mills and Others v. Commission, [1999] ECR I-769, para 28.
144. Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98, judgment of 10 Feb. 2000, nyr, para 51.
145. See Case T-238/97, Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria v. Council, [1998] ECR II-2271, para 50.
146. Cf. Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia, supra note 12.
147. Case T-60/96, [1997] ECR II-849. Cf. Joined Cases 106 and 107/63, Toepfer v. Commission, [1965] ECR 405.
148. Para 70.
149. Supra note 59, para 65.
150. Case C-209/94 P, [1996] ECR I-615. See also Levende Varkens, supra note 34, para 62; ACAV, supra note 62, para 61; Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa, supra note 127, para 46.
151. At I-625. The Advocate General took the view that the applicants should be considered individually concerned on the basis of Extramet, but that they were not directly concerned: see I-625-628.
152. Case T-489/93, [1994] ECR II-1201. See also Michailidis, supra note 59, para 64.
153. Supra note 34.
154. Para 76.
155. Weber, supra note 118, para 65; Roquette, supra note 118, para 44.
156. See e.g. Case 6/68, Zuckerfabrik Watenstedt v. Council, [1968] ECR 409, 415; Case 101/76, Koninklijke Scholten Honig v. Council and Commission, [1977] ECR 797, para 24; Sveriges Betodlares, supra note 63, para 29.
157. See e.g. Michailidis, supra note 59, para 61; Case T-38/98, ANB and Others v. Council, [1998] ECR II-4191, para 23; Case T-158/95, Eridania and Others v. Council, judgment of 8 July 1999, nyr, para 60.
158. See Arnull, 32 CML Rev., 7-49, 35-37.
159. This will not invariably be the case, because the nature of a measure as a regulation is not called into question by the mere fact that it is possible to determine the number or even the identity of those affected by it: see e.g. Joined Cases 789 and 790/79, Calpak v. Commission, [1980] ECR 1949, para 9.
160. Case T-99/94, [1994] ECR II-871.
161. Paras. 20-21 (emphasis added).
162. Case C-10/95 P, [1995] ECR I-4149, para 43. See also Case C-87/95 P, CNPAAP v. Council, [1996] ECR I-2003, para 36; Weber, supra note 118, para 69; the Area Cova Orders, supra note 57, paras. 69 and 68 respectively. The approach of the Community Courts may have been influenced by German law: see Schwarze, European Administrative Law (Sweet and Maxwell, 1992), pp. 123-127.
163. Supra note 59.
164. Para 71.
165. See CSR Pampryl, supra note 62, para 48.
166. See Case 44/79, Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, [1979] ECR 3727, para 17.
167. See e.g. Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon v. Metro, [1971] ECR 487, para 11.
168. Case 5/88, Wachauf v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, [1989] ECR 2609, para 18; Hauer, supra note 162, para 23.
169. Para 69.
170. See A.G. Lenz in Codorniu, supra note 4, I-1868-1869.
171. A.G. Lenz observed in Codorniu that "the Extramet judgment is distinguished by the fact that on account of the requisite special relationship between the applicant's situation and the contested measure, for the first time the economic effects are the sole criterion": I-1868, emphasis in the original.
172. Para 69. See also Van Parys, supra note 57, para 51; the Area Cova Orders, supra note 57, paras. 65 and 64 respectively; Euromin v. Council, supra note 72, paras. 45 and 49, where the CFI emphasized the exceptional circumstances of the Extramet case.
173. Cf. the approach of A.G. Jacobs, supra note 1, I-2525.
174. Cf. the remarks of A.G. Lenz in Codorniu, supra note 4, I-1868-1869.
175. See esp. Case 169/84, Cofaz v. Commission, [1986] ECR 391, para 23, a State aid case where the Court cites decisions in the fields of competition and dumping; Arnull, 32 CML Rev., 7-49, 30-33; Nehl, Principles of Administrative Procedure in EC Law (Oxford, Hart, 1999), p. 95.
176. See esp. Case 169/84, Cofaz v. Commission, [1986] ECR 391, para 23, a State aid case where the Court cites decisions in the fields of competition and dumping; Arnull, 32 CML Rev., 7-49, 30-33; Nehl, Principles of Administrative Procedure in EC Law (Oxford, Hart, 1999), p. 95.
177. Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96, judgment of 1 Dec. 1999, nyr.
178. See Case T-120/96, Lilly Industries v. Commission, [1998] ECR II-2571.
179. Para 168.
180. Merck and Others v. Commission, supra note 57, para 73. See also Molkerei, supra note 59, para 68, referring to the judgment of the Court in Asocarne, supra note 67, para 40. Cf. the approach of the CFI to failure to respect the rights of the defence as a ground for annulment in Case T-450/93, Lisrestal v. Commission, [1994] ECR II-1177, para 42.
181. See Levende Varkens, supra note 34, para 59.
182. Molkerei, supra note 59, para 67.
183. Molkerei, supra note 59, para 60. See also CSR Pampryl, supra note 62, para 50.
184. Supra note 44, para 77. See also IBM, supra note 38, para 9.
185. Case T-183/97, judgment of 17 Feb. 2000, nyr.
186. Para 34. See also Friuli-Venezia Giulia, supra note 12, paras. 33-34; Molkerei, supra note 59, para 77.
187. See paras. 35-54. See generally Canedo, "L'intérêt à agir dans le recours en annulation du droit communautaire", 36 RTDE (2000), 451-510.
188. See the operative part of the judgment. For other examples, see Case T-145/95, Proderec v. Commission, [1997] ECR II-823; Case T-26/97, Antillean Rice Mills v. Commission, [1997] ECR II-1347.
189. Supra note 34. See also Levende Varkens, supra note 34. Cf. Proderec, supra note 183; Antillean Rice Mills, supra note 183; Case T-236/95, TAT European Airlines v. Commission, Order of 31 Jan. 2000; Joined Cases T-46 & 151/98, CEMR v. Commission, judgment of 3 Feb. 2000, nyr.
190. Para 59.
191. Para 60.
192. Case T-102/96, [1999] 4 CMLR 971.
193. Para 45.
194. Case T-22/97, judgment of 15 Dec. 1999, nyr.
195. Para 57.
196. In Antillean Rice Mills, supra note 34, para 76, the CFI spoke of undertakings simply being "concerned" by a measure.
197. See Gencor, supra note 187, para 42; Kesko, supra note 189, para 57.
198. See the observation of K.P.E. Lasok Q.C. in evidence submitted to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities: The Court of First Instance: Single Judge (Session 1997-98, 25th Report), p. 48.
199. Supra note 7, 107.
200. See Joined Cases T-528, 542, 543 & 546/93, Métropole Télévision and Others v. Commission, [1996] ECR II-649, para 60; Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia, supra note 12, para 40; Netherlands Antilles, supra note 28, para 44.
201. See Joined Cases T-528, 542, 543 & 546/93, Métropole Télévision and Others v. Commission, [1996] ECR II-649, para 60; Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia, supra note 12, para 40; Netherlands Antilles, supra note 28, para 44.
202. See e.g. Molkerei, supra note 59, para 78.
203. See e.g. Danielsson, supra note 112, para 77.
204. See e.g. Salamander, supra note 59, para 73; cf. Comafrica, supra note 124, para 40. See further Harlow, "Access to justice as a human right: The European Convention and the European Union", in Alston, Bustelo and Heenan (Eds.), The EU and Human Rights (OUP, 1999), Chap. 7. The right to an effective remedy and a fair trial is also laid down in Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union solemnly proclaimed in Nice on 7 Dec. 2000, O.J. 2000, C 364/20.
205. Similar issues arise in competition cases where the Commission refuses to pursue a complaint on the basis that the complainant's rights can be adequately protected in the national courts: see e.g. Case T-24/90, Automec v. Commission (No. 2), [1992] ECR II-2223; Case T-114/92, BEMIM v. Commission, [1995] ECR II-147; Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96 and T-123/96, SGA v. Commission, judgment of 13 Dec. 1999, nyr. In that context, however, the question goes not to the admissibility of the action but to its substance.
206. See e.g. Michailidis, supra note 59 (where the proceedings were stayed until the ECJ had dealt with a reference on the validity of the contested act); Roquette Frères, supra note 118, para 45; Greenpeace Council and Others, supra note 113, paras. 32-33; Salamander, supra note 59, para 76.
207. See e.g. the two Area Cova Orders, supra note 57, paras. 80-85 and 79-84 respectively. Cf. CSR Pampryl v. Commission, supra note 62, paras. 56-60; Molkerei, supra note 59, paras. 76 and 77.
208. Supra, note 59.
209. Para 74. Cf. Asocarne, supra note 67, para 26; ACAV and Others, supra note 62, para 68.
210. See Kahn Scheepvaart, supra note 34, para 50; Case T-18/95, Atlanta and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert v. Commission, [1996] ECR II-1669, para 50; UEAPME, supra note 59, para 61; ACAV and Others, supra note 62, para 68; Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa, supra note 127, para 37. The absence of an alternative remedy may, however, be treated as reinforcing a view that an action should be held admissible on other grounds: see Allied Corporation, supra note 76, paras. 8 and 13, and the Opinions of the Advocates General in Geotronics, supra note 47, and Dreyfus, supra note 88.
211. Para 75.
212. Para 78. Ward, op. cit. supra note 10, argues that the Community Courts require national courts to attain a higher standard than they set themselves in ensuring effective judicial protection: see e.g. pp. 242-245 and 323.
213. Cf. A.G. Jacobs in Extramet, supra note 1, I-2524-2525, and in Case C-188/92, TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, [1994] ECR I-833, 841-843. See also the CCBE's contribution to the 2000 IGC, CONFER/VAR 3966/00, 18 May 2000, paras. 37-40; de Witte, "The past and future role of the European Court of Justice in the protection of human rights", in Alston et al. (Eds.), op. cit. supra note 198, Chap. 27, pp. 875-877.
214. For discussion of the deadline, see Ward, op. cit. supra note 10, pp. 205-209.
215. For discussion of the role of administrative law in the post-modern world, see Harlow, "European administrative law and the global challenge", in Craig and de Búrca (Eds.), The Evolution of EU Law (OUP, 1999), Chap. 7. The procedural requirements and standards of good administration imposed on the institutions by the Community Courts once any problems of standing have been overcome are analysed by Nehl, op. cit. supra note 171.
216. That preoccupation was clearly evident in the discussion paper issued by the Community Courts in the spring of 1999 on the future of the Union's judicial system. See Arnull, "Judicial architecture or judicial folly? The challenge facing the European Union", 24 EL Rev. (1999), 516-524.
217. See the "Memorandum on reform of the judicial system of the European Union" submitted by France to the 2000 IGC (CONFER 4726/00, 27 March 2000, pp. 23-24).
218. See the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, "EU Charter of Fundamental Rights" (Session 1999-2000, 8th Report, HL Paper 67), paras. 132-133. It would not be desirable to attempt to limit any relaxation of the standing rules to cases where it was claimed that the Charter had been infringed: see de Witte, op. cit. supra note 207, pp. 893-896; Arnull, op. cit. supra note 10, p. 49.
219. See the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, "EU Charter of Fundamental Rights" (Session 1999-2000, 8th Report, HL Paper 67), paras. 132-133. It would not be desirable to attempt to limit any relaxation of the standing rules to cases where it was claimed that the Charter had been infringed: see de Witte, op. cit. supra note 207, pp. 893-896; Arnull, op. cit. supra note 10, p. 49.
220. See the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, "EU Charter of Fundamental Rights" (Session 1999-2000, 8th Report, HL Paper 67), paras. 132-133. It would not be desirable to attempt to limit any relaxation of the standing rules to cases where it was claimed that the Charter had been infringed: see de Witte, op. cit. supra note 207, pp. 893-896; Arnull, op. cit. supra note 10, p. 49.