European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) and Remote Ga...

Facts

• The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) and the Remote Gambling Association (RGA) challenged the European Commission’s decision to close infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom concerning its gambling legislation.
• The associations alleged that the Commission’s decision adversely affected their members, who operated within the UK gambling market and were subject to UK gambling laws.
• EGBA and RGA argued their members suffered specific economic and operational impacts from the continued enforcement of the disputed UK legislation and were therefore individually concerned.
• The associations emphasized the ascertainable nature of their membership to suggest their members formed a “closed circle” of affected parties.

Issues

1. Whether EGBA and RGA had standing to challenge the Commission’s decision by demonstrating individual concern under the Plaumann test.
2. Whether the Commission’s decision differentiated the associations' members from all other operators affected by the UK's gambling legislation.
3. Whether the existence of a “closed circle” of ascertainable members satisfied the requirement for individual concern.

Decision

• The General Court held that EGBA and RGA did not meet the Plaumann test for individual concern.
• The Court determined that the Commission’s decision affected all operators in the UK gambling market similarly, including the associations’ members.
• The argument that a “closed circle” of members provided sufficient differentiation was rejected; the Court confirmed that individual concern requires distinct differentiation, not just ascertainability.
• The associations were found to lack standing to bring the action.

Legal Principles

• The Plaumann test requires applicants to demonstrate that they are affected by an EU act due to attributes or circumstances that differentiate them from all others subject to the act.
• Associations face significant difficulty establishing individual concern when their members are part of a broader group generally affected by the contested measure.
• The concept of a “closed circle” or ascertainable membership is insufficient by itself; individual concern depends on differentiation from all other affected parties.
• Article 263(4) TFEU sets the framework for legal standing, but does not lower the individual concern threshold for associations.

Conclusion

The General Court found that EGBA and RGA lacked standing as their members were not individually concerned under the Plaumann test. The decision highlights that associations must demonstrate a level of differentiation beyond mere inclusion within a defined or ascertainable group when challenging EU acts.