T-173/98

Avis juridique important | 61998B0173 Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 23 November 1999. - Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA) v Council of the European Union. - Manifestly inadmissible. - Case T-173/98. European Court reports 1999 Page II-03357 Summary Keywords Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation reforming the common organisation of the market in olive oil - Action brought by an association of traders operating in that sector - Inadmissible (EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC); Council Regulation No 1638/98) Summary $$An action for annulment of Regulation No 1638/98 - which amends the scheme for the common organisation of the market in olive oil - brought by an association of traders operating in that sector is inadmissible. That measure aims to amend the mechanisms of the common organisation of the markets in the oils and fats sector established by Regulation No 136/66, and its provisions thus have legal consequences for traders operating in those markets. It is, therefore, by its nature and its scope, legislative in character and does not constitute a decision within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty (now Article 249 EC). The fact that Regulation No 1638/98 may have the effect, in particular, of limiting the number of operators entitled to certain forms of aid by requiring the oil to be produced from plantings existing before the date of its adoption or entry into force cannot automatically deprive the Regulation of its general application, since it is not disputed that it applies to all the operators affected who are in the same objectively determined factual or legal situation, that is to say, operating in the olive oil markets - a situation defined by the measure in relation to its purpose, which is to amend the common organisation of those markets. Nor is such an association affected by Regulation No 1638/98 by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to it or by reason of circumstances in which it is differentiated from all other persons, so that it may be deemed to be individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC). First, it has no rights of a procedural nature under the common organisation of the markets in the oils and fats sector, it being settled law that an association cannot rely on the specific tasks and duties which national law recognises it as having. Secondly, notwithstanding the fact that the Regulation may have affected certain members of the association operating in the olive oil markets by causing them to cease trading, those operators are in an objectively determined situation comparable to that of any other trader who may enter those markets now or in the future. Thirdly, the Regulation does not affect the specific interests of the association as a body responsible for protecting the interests of traditional olive growers. Lastly, such an association cannot be regarded as individually concerned by Regulation No 1638/98 by reason of lack of effective legal protection, that is to say, because there are no legal remedies under national law which make it possible, if necessary, to review the legality of the contested Regulation by means of a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC). The principle of equality for all persons subject to Community law in respect of the conditions for access to the Community judicature by means of the action for annulment requires that those conditions do not depend on the particular circumstances of the judicial system of each Member State.