Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council of the European U...

Facts

• The case involved an action brought by Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA), an association of undertakings representing banana importers, against a Council regulation on the common organization of the market in bananas.
• UPA challenged the admissibility of the regulation, asserting that it directly and individually concerned its members due to changes in the import licensing system.
• The Court of First Instance (CFI) considered the applicability and interpretation of Article 230 EC (now Article 263 TFEU) concerning individual access to judicial review of Community acts.
• UPA argued that the measure was limited to a closed group of existing market operators affected at the time of adoption.

Issues

1. Whether UPA’s members were directly and individually concerned by the Council regulation within the meaning of Article 230 EC.
2. Whether the criteria established by UPA sufficed to constitute a “closed group” under the Plaumann test.
3. Whether the changes introduced by the regulation met the individualized impact threshold necessary for standing.

Decision

• The CFI upheld the formal structure of the Plaumann test in determining standing for individual applicants challenging Community acts.
• The court rejected UPA's argument, finding that the regulation did not define a sufficiently closed group, as it did not preclude the possibility of future market entrants.
• The judgment concluded that current importers being more affected than future importers did not equate to the individualized impact required by Plaumann.
• The court clarified that only objective factors, existing at the time the measure was adopted, could define a closed group for the purpose of standing.

Legal Principles

• Under the Plaumann test, an applicant must demonstrate that a Community act affects them by reason of attributes peculiar to them or by circumstances differentiating them from all others, thereby forming a closed group.
• The closed group must be ascertainable based on objective facts at the time of the act's adoption; speculative or future impacts are insufficient.
• The CFI maintained a strict interpretation of “direct and individual concern,” reinforcing formal requirements for standing under Article 230 EC.

Conclusion

The Court of First Instance held that UPA did not meet the conditions for standing under Article 230 EC, as the regulation’s effect on current importers did not satisfy the Plaumann test for a closed and individualized group, thus preserving the established approach to individual concern in judicial review of EU acts.