Facts
- The case concerned a Commission decision granting financial assistance to Spain for the construction of power stations in the Canary Islands.
- Greenpeace and other environmental organizations challenged this decision before the Court of First Instance (CFI).
- The applicants contended that the construction of the power stations would harm the environment, particularly endangering protected bird species.
Issues
- Whether Greenpeace and associated environmental NGOs had standing (locus standi) to challenge a Commission decision before the EU courts.
- Whether the applicants demonstrated direct and individual concern as required by Article 173 EEC (now Article 263 TFEU).
- Whether environmental organizations could establish a differentiated interest in environmental matters distinct from the general public to satisfy the Court’s standing requirements.
Decision
- The CFI dismissed Greenpeace's application on the basis of lack of standing.
- The Court held that Greenpeace and the other applicants failed to demonstrate direct and individual concern as required for admissibility.
- It found that the contested Commission decision was of general application, and the alleged environmental harm did not set Greenpeace apart from the general public.
- The CFI emphasized that a specific, demonstrable impact beyond a general interest in environmental protection was necessary to meet the criteria.
Legal Principles
- The concept of standing (locus standi) in EU law requires applicants to demonstrate a legal interest that is both direct and individual.
- The Plaumann test, from Plaumann & Co. v Commission (Case 25/62), requires a decision to affect applicants by reason of attributes peculiar to them or circumstances that differentiate them from all others.
- Environmental NGOs generally cannot demonstrate individual concern for acts of general application unless uniquely and specifically affected.
- The requirement for direct and individual concern is applied strictly, particularly where the challenged act has diffuse effects on the public.
Conclusion
The CFI's decision in Greenpeace v Commission confirmed the strict application of standing rules for environmental NGOs, finding that Greenpeace lacked the required direct and individual concern to challenge the Commission's general decision. This case established a significant barrier to judicial review for such organizations in EU law.