Introduction
The Plaumann case, decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1963, established the basic principle of "individual concern" regarding standing to challenge acts of the European Union. This principle dictates under what circumstances a private individual or entity can bring an action before the Court against a decision addressed to another party. The Court determined that such a challenge requires the applicant to be affected by the act in a manner that distinguishes them individually, just as in the case of the addressee. This requirement ensures that legal challenges are limited to those directly and uniquely impacted, maintaining the efficacy of the EU legal system. The Plaumann test established a high threshold for demonstrating individual concern, significantly shaping the framework of judicial review within the European Union legal order.
The Facts of Plaumann & Co. v Commission
Plaumann & Co., a German importer of clementines, challenged a Commission decision addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany which refused authorization to suspend customs duties on clementines. The Commission's decision effectively maintained the tariff, impacting all importers of clementines at the time. Plaumann & Co. argued that they were directly and individually affected by the decision.
Establishing the "Individual Concern" Test
The ECJ articulated the "individual concern" test by distinguishing between legislative acts of general application and those having individual concern. The Court defined individual concern as being affected by the measure "by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons." This criterion requires more than simply being part of a group affected by a measure; the applicant must be uniquely identifiable by the measure itself.
Applying the Test to Plaumann & Co
The Court held that Plaumann & Co., as an importer of clementines, was not individually concerned by the Commission’s decision. While the decision impacted their business, the Court reasoned that their status as an importer was a commercial activity that could be undertaken by anyone at any time. Therefore, the decision did not single out Plaumann & Co. in a way that differentiated them from all others. They were part of an open category of traders and not uniquely impacted. This conclusion, despite the clear economic impact on Plaumann & Co., highlighted the stringency of the individual concern test.
The Significance and Subsequent Development of the Plaumann Test
The Plaumann judgment significantly restricted access to judicial review for private parties challenging EU acts. The strict interpretation of individual concern has been the subject of much debate and criticism over the years, with many arguing that it creates an overly restrictive barrier to justice. The natural difficulty in satisfying the Plaumann test led to the development of alternative avenues for judicial review, such as the action for annulment under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The ECJ further elaborated on the Plaumann test in subsequent cases, such as Codorniu SA v Council (Case C-309/89), which established the "closed category" exception. In this case, the Court found individual concern where the contested measure affected a fixed and ascertainable group of individuals at the time the measure was adopted. This provided a slightly broader interpretation of individual concern in specific circumstances. However, the fundamental principle established in Plaumann remains a key element of EU judicial review.
Practical Implications and Criticisms of the Plaumann Doctrine
The practical effect of the Plaumann test has been to limit direct challenges to EU acts by individuals and businesses. This has placed a significant emphasis on the role of Member States in challenging EU acts on behalf of their citizens, as they are generally considered to have standing. This, however, can present issues if a Member State is unwilling or unable to pursue such a challenge. Critics of the Plaumann doctrine contend that it creates an accountability deficit, potentially allowing EU institutions to act without sufficient checks and balances. The limited access to justice for individuals can also be seen as undermining the principles of effective judicial protection and the rule of law within the EU legal order.
Conclusion
The Plaumann judgment, while establishing a critical principle of individual concern in challenging EU acts, has created a complex and often controversial system for judicial review. The strict interpretation of individual concern necessitates a unique and identifiable impact beyond membership in a generally affected group, as demonstrated by the Court's reasoning regarding Plaumann & Co.’s status as a clementine importer. Subsequent case law, such as Codorniu, has refined and, in certain instances, broadened the application of the test, but the fundamental principles established in Plaumann continue to shape access to justice within the EU. The ongoing debate surrounding the Plaumann doctrine highlights the delicate balance between maintaining the efficacy of the EU legal system and ensuring effective judicial protection for individuals and businesses. The evolution of this jurisprudence remains an important area of study for understanding the development of EU law.
