Nyp, see http://curia.eu.int/en/jurisp/index.htm. [The case is now available on line at: http://europa.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Submit&docrequire=alldocs&numaff=T+177%2F01&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100; for a summary (in German), see also http://www.annonet.de/recht/aktuelles/eugh/02/05_cie.shtm; the case is also in EuZW (Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht), Vol.13, No. 13/2002, pp. 412–415 with an annotation by Thomas Lübbig. (The Editors, German Law Journal, 15 July 2002)]Google Scholar

Court of Justice, Press and Information Division, Press Release No. 41/02 on Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie/Commission of 3 May 2002 (available at http://curia.eu.int/en/cp/aff/cp0241en.htm (last visited 29 May, 2002).Google Scholar

see e.g. Financial Times, May 4th/May 5th 2002, at 3.Google Scholar

Süddeutsche Zeitung, 6. Mai 2002: “Jeder Betroffene kann gegen europaweite Richtlinien klagen”.Google Scholar

Die Tageszeitung, 4. Mai 2002, at 2: “Faktisch wurde damit eine Art ‘europäischer Verfassungsbeschwerde’ eingeführt.”Google Scholar

Agence Europe No. 8206 (May 6th/May 7th 2002), at 16: “… ce que certains appellent un coup de force du Tribunal, d'autres un coup de publicité.”Google Scholar

see e.g. Barav, A., ‘Direct and Individual Concern: An Almost Insurmountable Barrier to the Admissibility of Individual Appeal to the EEC Court', 11 (1974) CML Rev. 191 et seq.; H. Rasmussen, ‘Why is Article 173 Interpreted against Private Plaintiffs?', 5 (1980) ELRev. 112 et seq.; A. Arnull, ‘Private Applicants and the Action for Annulment under Article 173 of the EC Treaty', 32 (1995) CML Rev. 7 et seq.; D. Waelbroeck/A.-M. Verheyden, ‘Les conditions de recevabilité des recours en annulation des particuliers contre les actes normatifs communautaires à la lumière du droit compare et de la Convention des droits de l'homme', (1995) Cahiers de droit européen, 399 et seq.; P. Craig/G. De Búrca, EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials (2nd Ed., OUP, Oxford 1998), 461 et seq.; C. Harlow, ‘Access to Justice as a Human Right: The European Convention and the European Union', in: P. Alston (ed.), The EU and Human Rights (OUP, Oxford 1999), 187 et seq.; B. De Witte, ‘The Past and Future Role of the European Court of Justice in the Protection of Human Rights', in: P. Alston (ed.), The EU and Human Rights (OUP, Oxford 1999), 859 et seq. – The Court's restrictive approach is defended by P. Nihoul, ‘La recevabilité des recours en annulation introduits par un particulier à l'encontre d'un acte communautaire de portée générale', 30 (1994) RTD eur. 171 et seq.Google Scholar

see Article 230 (4) EC: “Any natural or legal person may … institute proceedings 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.” see also the book review on Bölhoff's focal study on the CFI by Timo Tohidipur, in this issue.Google Scholar

The leading case is Case 25/62 Plaumann [1963] ECR 197 but see also Case 16/62 Confédération nationale des producteurs de fruits et legumes [1962] ECR 901 and Case 307/81 Alusuisse [1982] ECR 3463.Google Scholar

For an overview on this case law see e.g. P. Nihoul, ‘La recevabilité des recours en annulation introduits par un particulier à l'encontre d'un acte communautaire de portée générale', 30 (1994) RTD eur. 171 et seq. and T.C. Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law (4th ed., OUP, Oxford 1998) at 355 et seq.Google Scholar

see Case C-309/89 Codorniu [1994] ECR I-1853, but also the Anti-dumping Case C-358/89 Extramet [1991] ECR I-2501 is often cited in this context.Google Scholar

Quotation from Cases 789 and 790/79 Calpak [1980] ECR 1949 at 9, but see also the ‘post- Codorniu' Case T-472/93 Campo Ebro [1996] ECR II-421.Google Scholar

On this and the influence of the stricter German approach see M. Fromont, ‘L'influence du droit français et du droit allemand sur les conditions de recevabilité du recours en annulation devant la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes', 3 (1966) RTD eur. 47 et seq.Google Scholar

see, for a comprehensive discussion of the different policy arguments concerning standing of individuals, e.g. P. Craig/G. De Búrca, EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials (2nd ed., OUP, Oxford 1998), 479 et seq.Google Scholar

Case 294/83 Les Verts [1986] ECR 1339.Google Scholar

Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199.Google Scholar

This view is supported by P. Nihoul, ‘La recevabilité des recours en annulation introduits par un particulier à l'encontre d'un acte communautaire de portée générale', 30 (1994) RTD eur. 171 et seq. who argues that this form of ‘decentralised’ judicial control is also in line with the principle of subsidiarity.Google Scholar

see the authors cited, supra, note 7 (with the exception of P. Nihoul).Google Scholar

AG Jacobs in Case C-358/89 Extramet [1991] ECR I-2501 and very recently in Case C-50/00 P Union de Pequeños Agricultores/Council [Opinion delivered on 21 March 2002, nyp].Google Scholar

see on this e.g. Waelbroeck, D./Verheyden, A.-M., ‘Les conditions de recevabilité des recours en annulation des particuliers contre les actes normatifs communautaires à la lumière du droit compare et de la Convention des droits de l'homme', (1995) Cahiers de droit européen, at 433 et seq.Google Scholar

For an example see Art. 13 of the Television without Frontiers Directive cited by B. De Witte, ‘The Past and Future Role of the European Court of Justice in the Protection of Human Rights', in: P. Alston (ed.), The EU and Human Rights (OUP, Oxford 1999), at 876.Google Scholar

This aspect is developed by Waelbroeck, D./Verheyden, A.-M., ‘Les conditions de recevabilité des recours en annulation des particuliers contre les actes normatifs communautaires à la lumière du droit compare et de la Convention des droits de l'homme', (1995) Cahiers de droit européen, at 425 et seq.Google Scholar

see Case 194/83 Les Verts [1986] ECR 1365 at 23.Google Scholar

Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie/Commission at 27-38.Google Scholar

The CFI underlines furthermore (see Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie/Commission at 41) that this principle is also based in the constitutional traditions common to the Union's Member States and in the ECHR (referring to Case 222/84 Johnson [1986] ECR 1651 at 18) and the its has been reaffirmed by the (legally not yet binding) Charter of Fundamental Rights of 7 December 2000.Google Scholar

Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie/Commission at 46.Google Scholar

Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie/Commission at 45.Google Scholar

see Conclusions of AG Jacobs in Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores/Council at 43.Google Scholar

Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie/Commission at 50.Google Scholar

My translation. The (complete) original text reads as follows: “Au vu de ce qui précède, et afin d'assurer une protection juridictionnelle effective des particuliers, une personne physique ou morale doit ětre considérée comme individuellement concernée par une disposition communautaire de portée générale qui la concerne directement, si la disposition en question affecte, d'une manière certaine et actuelle, sa situation juridique en restreignant ses droits ou en lui imposant des obligations. Le nombre et la situation d'autres personnes également affectées par la disposition ou susceptibles de l'ětre ne sont pas, à cet égard, des considérations pertinentes.”, Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie/Commission at 51.Google Scholar

This is evidenced by the fact (reported by Agence Europe No. 8209 of 11 May 2002 at 15) that the CFI pronounced the judgment in an unexpected public hearing not foreseen in the Court's schedule and published on the same day a press release.Google Scholar

“…recognise the need to ensure effective protection of legal rights for European citizens and businesses.” see Court of Justice, Press and Information Division, Press Release No. 41/02 on Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie/Commission of 3 May 2002 (available at http://curia.eu.int/en/cp/aff/cp0241en.htm (last visited 29 May 2002).Google Scholar

Conclusions of AG Jacobs in Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores/Council.Google Scholar

see, the series of commentary and analysis of the Convention proceedings, in this Journal, starting in August 2002.Google Scholar

The Court has invited the IGC 1996/97 to reconsider the question of the individuals’ access to the Courts (see Report of the Court of Justice on Certain Aspects of the Application of the Treaty on European Union [May 1995] at 11). The Member States did, however, not deal with the question – a behaviour which could be interpreted as approval of the Court's current approach to the matter.Google Scholar