Case T‑279/11
T&L Sugars Ltd
and
Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda
v
European Commission
(Agriculture — Exceptional measures concerning the release of out-of-quota sugar on the Union market and opening a tariff quota — Action for annulment — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility — Action for damages)
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber), 6 June 2013
1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Commission regulations containing exceptional measures concerning the release of out-of-quota sugar on the Union market and opening a tariff quota — Included
(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulations No 222/2011, No 293/2011 and No 302/2011)
2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Concept — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme and referring to national implementing measures — Not included
(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulations No 222/2011, No 293/2011 and No 302/2011)
3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Implementation of the right to effective legal protection
(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)
4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Principle of effective legal protection — EU judicature not obliged to make application of the condition relating to the non-existence of implementing measures conditional on the existence, within the legal systems of the Member States, of an effective legal remedy
(Arts 19(1), second para., TEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU)
5. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether individually concerned by an act of general scope — Conditions
(Art. 263 TFEU)
6. Plea of illegality — Incidental nature — Main action inadmissible — Inadmissibility of the plea
(Art. 277 TFEU)
7. Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment — Limits — Misuse of procedure
(Arts 263 TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU)
8. Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment — Inadmissibility of the annulment action directed against a regulation — Irrelevant to the admissibility of an action based on another illegality and seeking compensation for damage caused by the adoption of the same regulation
(Arts 263 TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU)
1. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 36)
2. Where, in order to be granted the right to market or import sugar under the exceptional schemes provided for by certain regulations, interested economic operators must first submit an application to the national authorities, where those regulations cannot produce their legal effects vis-à-vis the operators concerned without the intermediary step of measures first being taken by the national authorities, and where those measures are in the nature of decisions, those regulations are based on individual decisions taken at national level, in default of which they cannot affect the legal position of the natural and legal persons concerned. Consequently, those regulations cannot be categorised as acts that do not entail implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. Moreover, the question of whether or not the contested regulatory act allows a degree of discretion to the authorities responsible for the implementing measures is irrelevant in ascertaining whether it entails implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
(see paras 46, 48, 50, 51, 53)
3. The objective of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU is intended, in particular, to enable natural and legal persons to bring an action against regulatory acts which are of direct and individual concern to them and which do not entail implementing measures, therefore avoiding a situation in which such a person would have to break the law in order to have access to justice. That provision thus implements the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
(see paras 58, 59)
4. Even though Article 19(1) TEU provides that Member States are to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law, the application by the Court of the condition relating to the non-existence of implementing measures, as set out in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, cannot be made conditional on the existence, within the legal systems of the Member States, of an effective legal remedy which makes it possible to call in question the legality of the contested European Union act. Such an interpretation would require the Courts of the European Union, in each individual case, to examine and interpret national procedural law, thereby exceeding their jurisdiction when reviewing the legality of European Union measures. That finding cannot be called into question by the applicants’ arguments invoking the right to effective legal protection and claiming that a legal remedy at national level would be manifestly ineffective given that the courts of the Member States do not have jurisdiction to rule that a European Union act is unlawful. The Courts of the European Union may not, without exceeding their jurisdiction, interpret the conditions under which a person can bring an action challenging a regulation, in a way which has the effect of setting aside the conditions in question, which are expressly laid down in the Treaty, even in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection.
(see paras 68-72)
5. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 76, 82-84)
6. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 96, 97)
7. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 103, 104)
8. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 112)