Here the Decision addressed to UK, so it should be note that the decision addressed to another person is typically a decision addressed to a Member State, which the individual applicant is seeking to annul. The leading case on individual concern is Case 25/62 Plaumann , in this case, the German government asked the Commission for permission to suspend collection of duties on clementines imported from third countries (countries outside the EC).
The Commission refused. This decision was addressed to the German government but clearly affected Plaumann who was one of about 30 importers of clementines into Germany. So Plaumann tried to challenge the Commission decision under Art 230 EC. He therefore had to establish individual concern. He claimed individual concern as an importer of clementines. The ECJ refused standing, saying that the decision was not of individual concern to Plaumann.
‘Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may only claim to be individually concerned if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed’. However, in Case 11/82 Piraiki–Patraiki there were two groups of applicants and one group was held to have standing.
Greek cotton undertakings challenged a Commission decision, which had authorised the French government to introduce a quota on imports of yarn (cotton) from Greece between November 1981 and January 1982. In this case ECJ held that a measure is of individual concern to an applicant only if the class of people whom it may affect is closed on the date of its adoption and if the applicant belongs to that class. The class is closed if the number and identity of its members is in one way or another unalterably fixed and therefore ascertainable at the time when the measure is taken.
From the above discussion it can be said Jacques St Malo, a Breton poultry farmer, who sent 2 tones of poultry to the UK in September and Pierre St Michel, a Breton poultry farmer, who intends to export poultry to the UK, can not challenge the Decision under Article 230, but Sainsbury’s Supermarkets, who sell French and other countries poultry can not challenge the Decision under Article 230. Here the fact is In October 2007, the Council of Ministers issued a regulation restricting the term ‘Caerphilly Cheese’ to cheese made in South Wales by specific manufacturers, listed in an appendix.
The regulation also laid down the maximum percentage of non-Welsh milk that can be used in the manufacture of Caerphilly cheese. Here it need to concern whether or not according to Art 230 EC the regulation of the Council of Ministers is subject to judicial review. There are three classes of applicant under Art 230 EC: privileged, semi-privileged and non-privileged. Under Article 230 EC, non-privileged applicants (i. e. natural and legal persons) may bring review proceedings where the challenged act is: 1. a decision addressed to the applicant
2. a decision in the form of a Regulation 3. a decision addressed to another person. In the second and third situations, the applicant must show that the contested measure is of direct and individual concern to him. So, Morgan Cheesemakers of Newport, who are listed in the appendix, but have always used milk from Gloucestershire and Jenkins Dairies of Caerphilly, who have been making Caerphilly cheese for over 200 years, but who are not listed in the appendix have to show that the regulation has direct and individual concern to him.
The test put forward by the CFI The CFI suggested a new test in: Case T-177/01 Jego-Quere et Cie SA v Commission . The case concerned a challenge to a Regulation setting minimum mesh sizes for fishing nets used in certain fishing grounds in order to reduce catches of juvenile hake (so to protect supplies of hake). The net sizes applied irrespective of the type of fish which the fishing vessels fishing in the areas were aiming to catch.
The applicant was a French fishing company operating in the relevant areas which fished for whiting and the Regulation was likely to have a significantly adverse effect on their business. The company claimed that the Regulation was in breach of the principlesof proportionality, equality and the requirement to state reasons. The Commission lodged an objection of inadmissibility to their application for judicial review of the Regulation. The CFI stated that the applicants were directly concerned by the Regulation. Under the established case law on Art 230.
The legislation at issue was a Regulation so there were no national implementing measures to be challenged which could have led to the possibility of an Art 234 EC reference where the validity of the Regulation could be tested. The applicants would therefore be denied effective access to the courts and the possibility of an effective judicial remedy. The only possibility would be for the applicants to deliberately flout the law and raise the invalidity of the Regulation as their defence when they were prosecuted. But this was hardly an appropriate remedy.