Addressee of decision


  • Act is of direct and individual concern to A


    • Dentist Airdrie
    • ➔ Rationale: if private company/individual is addressee of Comm decision, can challenge under I. But how about his competitors, who are also affected directly and individually? This was original intention. But subsequent development rather revolutionary.
    • ➔ “act”: pre-Lisbon wording was “decisions”. Now encompasses all legislative acts and non-legislative acts, as long as they produce legal effects. Codification of ECJ jurisprudence that looked to substance not form.




        • General principle (Les Verts): where EU measure directly affects A’s legal situation, and leaves no discretion to the (intermediate) addressees of the measures as to implementation. Direct causal relationship
        • International Fruit case, 1971: Reg provided for system of import licences. ECJ held that national authorities did not enjoy any discretion as to the licences/conditions of granting licences. The Commission’s decision and measure affected and impacted A directly – no possibility of intervention by national authority.
          • Piraiki-Patraiki, 1985: national authorities’ use of discretion is entirely theoretical.  
        • Cf Municipality of Differdange v Commission, 1984: Comm authorised Luxembourg to grant aid to steel firms on condition of reduction of capacity. ECJ held there was no direct concern – Comm’s decision did not identify the affected establishments (steel firms), nor the factories which would have to be shut down cos of reduction of production.

Left margin of discretion as to implementation in Dentist Airdrie and choice of factories to be closed to national authorities and the businesses!