Court of Justice of the European Union
Case 22/70, Commission v Council ('ERTA') [1971] ECR 263
"Article [263] treats as acts open to review by the Court all measures adopted by the institutions which are intended to have legal force... [a]n action for annulment must therefore be available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects."
Case 11/82 Piraiki Patraiki v Commission [1985] ECR 207
"the possibility that the French Republic might decide not to make use of the authorization granted to it by the Commission decision was entirely theoretical, since there could be no doubt as to the intention of the French authorities to apply the decision "(para 9).
The Plaumann formula, as articulated in Inuit (para 88):
'...in order for a contested act to be of individual concern to natural or legal persons... the act must affect those persons 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 a decision.' This was about clementine's, the claimant said they were affected as they imported clementine's but he Court said that this was not enough as it could be affected by anyone. There must be a closed class of individuals but this will not be seen as individually distinguishing unless the defendant institution was obliged to take account of the effect of the disputed act on members of the class concerned.
R v Secretary of State, ex parte British American Tobacco Case C-491/01 [2002] ECR I-11453:
'...taken with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated or evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case...'
Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament and Council [2011] ECR II-5599:
'For an individual to be directly concerned by a European Union measure, first, that measure must directly affect the legal situation of that individual and, secondly, there must be no discretion left to the addressees of that measure who are responsible for its implementation, that implementation being purely automatic ...'
Case T 585/93 Greenpeace and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II 2205 (upheld on appeal: Case C 321/95 P [1998] ECR I 1651).
A group of individuals and a group of associations. The decision granted Spain funding for building power plants. Concluded that the individual applicants were affected in the same way as anyone working or visiting in the area concerned. The same was true for the applicants they had not been able to establish an interest of their own that was different to their members. Joined Cases T 480/93 and T 483/93 Antillean Rice Mills and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II 2305 and Case T 145/95 Proderec v Commission [1997] ECR II 823.
C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovak Republic and Hungary v Council EU:C: 2017:631
An act is legislative 'only if it has been adopted on the basis of a provision of the treaties which expressly refers either to the ordinary legislative procedure or to the special legislative procedure.
Case 69/69 Alcan v Commission [1970] ECR 385.
Did not allow them to sell cheap aluminium. It was held to not be relevant to an importer because even if permission had been granted. Dividing up the aluminium, it would have been a matter for discretion of the government so it was not clear whether it would have had an impact on them.
Case C 209/94 P Buralux and Others v Council [1996] ECR I 615.
Household waste case. One of the applicants had concluded renewable five-year contracts for the disposal of waste. The French minister then adopted a degree prohibited the import of household waste. Held that they were not individually concerned they were affected similar to anyone involved in the transport of waste.
Case 294/83 Les Verts v Parliament [1986] ECR 1339.
In this case, a French political group sought the annulment of two measures by the European Parliament. At the time, they were not mentioned in this paragraph but the Court held that it would be inconsistent with the spirit of the treaty for measures adopted by the parliament much produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties to be unincluded. The Member States changed the wording of the treaty.
Slovak Republic and Hungary v Council
In this case, applicants claimed the council had breached an essential procedural requirement of 293(1) (of unanimity). The Court did not agree, the commission exercised its power to amend a proposal. It was approved on behalf of the Commission who were authorised to do so. The Council did not have to amend the proposal itself.
Case 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639
Only measures whose legal effects are "binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position" could be the subject of an action for annulment.
Case C-131/03 P Reynolds Tobacco and Others v Commission [2006] ECR I-7795.
The disputed facts did not lead to a distinct change in the applicants legal position. The test was not met. The appellants were American cigarette manufacturers. The commission suspected them of smuggling. The appellants challenged two decisions of the Commission. The General Court held that the conditions did not pass the IBM test.
