T-238/14 EGBA, RGA v Commission

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

EDSA, a coalition of digital streaming services, recently contested a new EU directive imposing additional licensing requirements on streaming providers operating across several Member States. These requirements, according to EDSA, place a disproportionate burden on its members’ tailored subscription models. EDSA maintains that the Commission overlooked the distinct nature of its members’ contractual arrangements, resulting in a uniform policy that affects them more severely. Additionally, each EDSA member alleges that their specific licensing obligations differ significantly from those of other comparable market participants. As a result, EDSA asserts that its members are individually and directly concerned by the directive's broad application.


Which legal principle must EDSA establish to satisfy the Plaumann test for individual concern?

Introduction

The Plaumann test, originating from the 1963 European Court of Justice (ECJ) case Plaumann & Co. v Commission, establishes criteria for determining individual concern, a prerequisite for non-privileged applicants to challenge EU acts before the Court. This test requires that the applicant be affected by the contested 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, thus making them individually concerned in the same way as the addressee. Meeting these requirements presents significant challenges, particularly for associations representing collective interests. Case T-238/14, concerning the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) and the Remote Gambling Association (RGA), provides an important analysis of the Plaumann test’s application to associations within the context of gambling regulation.

The Plaumann Test and its Challenges for Associations

The Plaumann test demands a demonstration of individual and direct concern. Individual concern necessitates the applicant being affected differently from other similarly situated entities. This poses a considerable obstacle for associations, as their members are often part of a broader group affected by the legislation in question. The RGA and EGBA faced this hurdle in challenging the Commission's decision to close infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom relating to its gambling legislation.

Case T-238/14: Background and Arguments

The EGBA and RGA argued that the Commission’s decision negatively affected their members, who were subject to the UK's gambling laws. They contended that this constituted individual concern, justifying their standing to challenge the Commission’s decision. The associations pointed to their members' specific operations within the UK gambling market, emphasizing their distinct economic interests impacted by the contested measure. Their argument centered on the notion that the Commission’s decision perpetuated a situation detrimental to their members' businesses.

The General Court’s Application of Plaumann

The General Court carefully examined the associations' claims. It acknowledged the economic impact on their members resulting from the UK legislation but ultimately upheld the Commission's decision. The Court reasoned that the associations failed to demonstrate individual concern under the Plaumann test. The Court found that the impact of the UK legislation, albeit significant, affected all operators within the UK gambling market, not solely the members of the EGBA and RGA. This lack of differentiation rendered their situation insufficient to establish individual concern.

The Closed Circle Doctrine and its Relevance

The General Court referenced the “closed circle” doctrine, an element sometimes associated with demonstrating individual concern. This doctrine suggests individual concern can be established if the group of affected parties is fixed and ascertainable at the time the measure is adopted. However, the Court clarified that even if the membership of the associations constituted a closed circle, this alone does not automatically confer individual concern. The fundamental requirement of differentiation from all others remained unmet.

Implications for Future Challenges by Associations

Case T-238/14 holds significant implications for associations seeking to challenge EU acts. It reaffirms the stringent application of the Plaumann test, particularly concerning the demonstration of individual concern. The ruling clarifies that membership in an association, even when coupled with demonstrable economic impact, does not inherently grant standing. Associations must convincingly demonstrate that the contested measure affects their members in a way that distinguishes them from all other entities subject to the same measure. This judgment confirms the difficulty associations face in managing the complexities of EU legal standing.

Practical Considerations for Associations

Following the judgment in T-238/14, associations must carefully assess their standing before initiating legal challenges. They should carefully analyze the contested measure's impact and demonstrate a clear and distinct effect on their members compared to other market participants. Simply asserting a general economic impact or relying on membership alone is insufficient. Associations may need to explore alternative avenues, such as supporting individual member actions or engaging in political lobbying, to address their concerns effectively. Understanding the details of the Plaumann test and its application to associations is important for strategic decision-making in the EU legal setting.

The Lisbon Treaty and the Potential for Reform

The Lisbon Treaty introduced Article 263(4) TFEU, offering a potential avenue for reform regarding standing for associations. This article provides that any natural or legal person may challenge an act addressed to that person, or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and now includes acts which are of direct concern to them and do not entail implementing measures. However, the interpretation and application of this provision are still evolving. While it offers a potential pathway for greater access to justice for associations, Case T-238/14 demonstrates that the hurdles to establishing individual concern remain significant.

Conclusion

Case T-238/14 provides an important illustration of the Plaumann test’s application to associations challenging EU acts. The General Court’s decision emphasizes the need for a precise demonstration of individual concern, differentiating the association’s members from all others affected by the measure. The judgment stresses the challenges associations face in achieving legal standing and highlights the importance of a thorough assessment before initiating legal action. While the Lisbon Treaty's reforms offer potential for future change, the current legal setting demands a rigorous approach to establishing individual concern, requiring associations to carefully analyze the impact of the contested measure and demonstrate a unique effect on their members. This understanding is essential for managing the complex legal framework governing access to justice within the European Union.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal