Greenpeace v Commission (T-585/93) [1995] ECR II-2205

Facts

• The case concerned a Commission decision granting financial assistance to Spain for the construction of power stations in the Canary Islands.
• Greenpeace and other environmental organizations challenged this decision before the Court of First Instance (CFI).
• The applicants contended that the construction of the power stations would harm the environment, particularly endangering protected bird species.

Issues

1. Whether Greenpeace and associated environmental NGOs had standing (locus standi) to challenge a Commission decision before the EU courts.
2. Whether the applicants demonstrated direct and individual concern as required by Article 173 EEC (now Article 263 TFEU).
3. Whether environmental organizations could establish a differentiated interest in environmental matters distinct from the general public to satisfy the Court’s standing requirements.

Decision

• The CFI dismissed Greenpeace's application on the basis of lack of standing.
• The Court held that Greenpeace and the other applicants failed to demonstrate direct and individual concern as required for admissibility.
• It found that the contested Commission decision was of general application, and the alleged environmental harm did not set Greenpeace apart from the general public.
• The CFI emphasized that a specific, demonstrable impact beyond a general interest in environmental protection was necessary to meet the criteria.

Legal Principles

• The concept of standing (locus standi) in EU law requires applicants to demonstrate a legal interest that is both direct and individual.
• The Plaumann test, from Plaumann & Co. v Commission (Case 25/62), requires a decision to affect applicants by reason of attributes peculiar to them or circumstances that differentiate them from all others.
• Environmental NGOs generally cannot demonstrate individual concern for acts of general application unless uniquely and specifically affected.
• The requirement for direct and individual concern is applied strictly, particularly where the challenged act has diffuse effects on the public.

Conclusion

The CFI's decision in Greenpeace v Commission confirmed the strict application of standing rules for environmental NGOs, finding that Greenpeace lacked the required direct and individual concern to challenge the Commission's general decision. This case established a significant barrier to judicial review for such organizations in EU law.