## Facts

- The European Economic Community and the United States adopted an arrangement limiting exports of certain steel pipes and tubes, including oil-country tubular goods (OCTG), through a Community-wide quota.
- The Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No. 60/85 to implement the arrangement by distributing the overall export quota among Member States using stated criteria, including traditional trade patterns and reasonable access for new exporters through national export licensing.
- Regulation 60/85 contemplated that OCTG allocations would be determined by a specified date, but did not initially fix detailed Member State OCTG figures.
- The Council later adopted Regulation (EEC) No. 2355/85, effective 20 August 1985, inserting a table into Annex III fixing Member State OCTG export allocations to the United States.
- Two German OCTG producers sought to export under the German share and contended the German allocation was too small in light of the Regulation 60/85 criteria, allegedly restricting their access to the U.S. market.
- The producers filed a direct action for annulment under Article 173(2) EEC, seeking annulment of Regulation 2355/85 (in whole or in relevant part) and, alternatively, a ruling that it could not apply to the period before its entry into force.

## Issues

1. Whether a Council regulation allocating an OCTG export quota among Member States directly concerned individual undertakings when national authorities retained discretion in distributing licences within the national share.
2. Whether such a quota-allocation regulation individually concerned specific undertakings, as opposed to applying generally to all exporters in the relevant Member State.
3. If standing existed, whether the regulation could have effect for a period preceding its entry into force.

## Decision

- The Court held the action inadmissible because the applicants were not directly and individually concerned within the meaning of Article 173(2) EEC.
- The Court treated Regulation 2355/85 as a measure of general application operating primarily at the Member State level within a broader quota regime.
- Because standing failed, the Court did not reach the merits, including the claim concerning temporal effect.

## Legal Principles

- A private applicant lacks direct concern where the contested measure does not itself alter the applicant’s legal position and its effects depend on subsequent implementing measures by national authorities exercising discretion.
- A private applicant lacks individual concern where the measure does not single out the applicant or a closed class of operators, but applies by objective criteria to all undertakings capable of engaging in the relevant trade.
- A quota-allocation regulation addressed to Member States, leaving Member States discretion to allocate licences among undertakings, is generally not challengeable by individual firms through a direct annulment action.

## Conclusion

The Court dismissed the annulment action because a regulation fixing Member State export quota shares—implemented through national licensing discretion—did not directly determine any firm’s entitlement and did not distinguish the applicants from other potential exporters, leaving them without standing to challenge the measure in a direct action.


Mannesmann-Röhrenwerke AG v. Council of the Eur. Cmtys., Case 333/85, [1987] E.C.R. 1381 (ECJ 1987)