Jégo-Quéré et Cie S.A. is a French fishing company operating
on a regular basis in the waters south of Ireland. It owns four fishing boats
over 30 metres in length and uses nets having a mesh of 80 mm, which have been
banned by a new Community regulation.
It applied to the Court of First Instance for annulment of two provisions
of the regulation in question, which require fishing vessels operating in certain
defined zones to use nets having a minimum mesh for beam trawling.
The Commission argued that the Court of First Instance should declare the
action inadmissible. According to the EC Treaty, “Any natural or
legal person may ... institute proceedings against a decision addressed to that
person or 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”. Whilst not denying that the contested provisions
are of direct concern to Jégo-Quéré,it claimed that the applicant
is not individually concerned, inasmuch as the rules governing mesh sizes apply
equally to all operators fishing in the Celtic Sea and not just to that operator.
The Commission argued that, on the basis of the criteria previously developed
by the case-law of the Community courts, the Court of First Instance was bound
to find that the applicant could not be regarded as individually concerned
within the meaning of the EC Treaty and that the action should therefore be
dismissed as inadmissible.
According to current case-law, a measure of general application may be contested
by an individual only if that measure affects his legal position by reason of
certain attributes peculiar to him or by reason of a factual situation which
differentiates him from all other persons.
The Court of First Instance finds that the effect of that case-law is to prevent
many individuals from challenging measures of general application which directly
affect their legal position.
The Court considers in that regard that none of the other possible procedural
routes constitutes a suitable vehicle for challenging the legality of a Community
measure.
It is unacceptable that, where no implementing measures exist at national
level in respect of which an action may be brought before the national courts,
an individual should be forced knowingly to infringe Community law in order
to gain access to a national court and thereby, as the case may be, to procure
a reference to the EC Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the point
at issue.
The criteria for bringing an action for compensation, which is designed to
make good damage caused by the Community, are such as to prevent the Community
judicature from fulfilling its task of reviewing, in all its aspects, the legality
of the measure in issue.
The Court of First Instance points out that, according to the case-law of
the EC Court of Justice, access to the courts is one of the fundamental elements
of a community based on the rule of law, as guaranteed by the legal order
based on the EC Treaty, which has established a complete system of legal
remedies and procedures designed to permit the Court of Justice to review the
legality of measures adopted by the institutions. The Court of Justice has held
that the right to an effective remedy before a court of competent jurisdiction
is based on the constitutional traditions common to the Member States
and on the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms. That right is reaffirmed by Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental
rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000.
The Court of First Instance therefore rules that, in order for individuals
to be properly protected by the courts, 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. The number and the position of
other persons who are likewise affected by the measure, or who may be so, are
of no relevance in that regard.
In the present case, the contested provisions undoubtedly impose obligations
on Jégo-Quéré, requiring it to use in its fishing operations
nets of a particular mesh size.
It is therefore both individually and directly concerned by the contested
provisions. Consequently, the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission
must be dismissed. The case continues.
Reminder: An appeal, limited to questions of law, may be brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities against the decision of the Court
of First Instance within two months of the date of service.
|
Available in all the Community languages. For the full text of the judgment, please consult our Internet page For further information please contact Mrs Ulrike Städtler |