英语论文网

Chernobyl case). (See, however, previously, Case 302/87 European Parliament v Council [1988] ECR 5615).
 
 This position was confirmed by the amendment to Article 173 (now 230) agreed at Maastricht in December 1991.  For an application see Case C-187/93 European Parliament v Council [1994] ECR I-2857. The TN added the EP to the list of full privileged applicants.  See also case T-222/99 de Gaulle & Ors v Parliament [1999] ECR II-3397 for discussion of ‘legal effects’.
 
 
 Private Individuals/Non-Privileged Applicants

 Individuals and other legal persons have standing in relation to three categories of acts:
(a) Decisions addressed to the individual;
      (b) Decisions which, though addressed to a third person, are of "direct and individual concern" to the individual;
       (c) Regulations which are in substance disguised Decisions, if they are of direct and individual concern to the individual. 
 
 Whereas the first type of case is straightforward, problems arise in connection with categories two and three.
 
 A reminder here that since 1989 these cases are heard first by the CFI though there may be an appeal to the ECJ on a point of law.
 
 Act Type B: Decisions addressed to another person
 In this case the test is for the applicant has to prove that the act being challenged is of "direct and individual concern" to her/him.
 
 Meaning of "direct concern"
 This requires a causal relationship between the Community act and the legal position of the applicant which is not interrupted by possible discretionary action on the part of the person implementing the Decision.
 
 * Case 69/69 Alcan v Commission [1970] ECR 385
 * Case 62/70 Bock v Commission [1971] ECR 897
 * Case 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission [1985] ECR 207
 • Case T-112/97 Monsanto v Commission, 22 April 1999
 •   Case T-172/98 Salamander and Others v European Parliament and Council, decision of 27 June 2000, 2000 ECR II-2487
 •Case C-486/01 P Front National [2004] ECR I-6289
 
 
 Meaning of "individual concern"
 
 This exists where the individual is affected by the act by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to him or by reason of circumstances in which he is differentiated from all other persons.  Usually because the person is part of a fixed and ascertainable group:
 
“In order for a measure to be of individual concern to the persons to whom it applies, it must affect their legal position because of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as a person to whom it is addressed” Plaumann (1963)
 
 *   Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95
• Cases 106-107/63 Toepfer v Commission [1965] ECR 405
• Cases T-585/93 and C-321/95 P Greenpeace v Commission [1998] ECR I-1651

We will look in detail at Greenpeace to observe the harshness of the ECJ’s position on ‘individual concern’.

Since May 2002 the law in this area has undergone considerable turbulence. We look at these cases to see what happened:

Case C-50/00 UPA v 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。