T-269/97

AZIENDA AGRICOLA TRE E MEZZO AND BAZZOCCHI ν COMMISSION

O R D E R O F T H E C O U R T O F FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) 9 September 1998 *

In Case T-269/97,

Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo, an agricultural holding governed by Italian law, established in Forlì (Italy),

and

Carlo Bazzocchi, farmer, residing in Cesena (Italy),

* Language of the case: Italian.

II-3107

ORDER OF 9. 9. 1998 — CASE T-269/97

T H E C O U R T O F FIRST INSTANCE O F T H E E U R O P E A N C O M M U N I T I E S (First Chamber),

composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges,

Registrar: H . Jung,

AZIENDA AGRICOLA TRE E MEZZO AND BAZZOCCHI ν COMMISSION

2 Annex IIb to the basic regulation contains an exhaustive list of products which may be used for the purpose of pest and disease control in the organic production of agricultural products.

3 O n 29 July 1997, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) N o 1488/97 amending Council Regulation (EEC) N o 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 12, 'the contested regulation'). That regulation, inter alia, amended Annex IIb to the basic regulation by excluding a number of products which may be used for the purpose of pest and disease control ('the excluded products').

Procedure and forms of order sought by the parties

4 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 13 October 1997, the applicants — who use organic methods in Romagna to grow apples of a specific variety known as the 'florina' apple and, in so doing, normally use one of the excluded products in order to protect them from pests and diseases — brought this action for the annulment of the contested regulation in so far as the new wording of Annex IIb to the basic regulation no longer refers to the excluded products.

5 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 5 January 1998, the Commission raised a plea of inadmissibility pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. It claimed that the Court should:

— order the Commission to pay the costs or, in the alternative, order the parties to bear their own costs.

Admissibility of the application

Summary of the arguments of the parties

7 The Commission submits that, since the contested regulation is a measure which applies in general and in the abstract, its provisions are not of individual concern to the applicants within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the E C Treaty. Consequently, the application should be dismissed as inadmissible.

8 In response to that submission, the applicants contend that the contested regula- tion is of individual concern to them 'in so far as it affects them by reason of cer- tain personal characteristics and certain circumstances which are such as to distin- guish them from farmers as a whole and to identify them'. They state that they use organic methods to grow a specific variety of apple known as the 'florina' apple, which differs from other varieties in particular 'as regards the products which may be used to protect it against harmful organisms'. Moreover, the 'florina' apple is grown in a region, Romagna, 'with a microclimate which would not readily be found elsewhere and which is inextricably linked to the defence mechanisms of the plant life and the presence of harmful organisms'. In the light of those particular circumstances, the applicants form part of a 'small class of identified or identifiable

II-3110

1 1 Furthermore, the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have consis­ tently held that the general applicability, and thus the legislative nature, of a mea­ sure is not called into question by the fact that it is possible to determine to a greater or lesser degree the number or even the identity of the persons to whom that measure applies at any given time, as long as it is established that it applies to them by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in relation to its purpose (see, for example, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 26/86 Deutz und Geldermann ν Council [1987] E C R 941, paragraph 8, and

II-3111

ORDER OF 9. 9. 1998 — CASE T-269/97

the order of the Court of First Instance in FRSEA and FNSEA ν Council, cited above, paragraph 19).

12 The Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have held with equal consis­ tency that, in order for economic operators to be regarded as being individually concerned by the measure whose annulment they seek, their legal position must be affected by reason of circumstances which differentiate them from all other per­ sons and distinguish them individually in the same way as an addressee (see, in this connection, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-309/89 Codorniu ν Council [1994] E C R I-1853, paragraph 20, and the order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-183/94 Cantina Cooperativa fra Produttori Vitivinicoli di Torre di Mosto ν Commission [1995] E C R 11-1941, paragraph 49).

13 In the present case, contrary to the applicants' submission, the contested regula­ tion, far from affecting them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances which differentiate them from all other opera­ tors, is addressed in abstract and general terms to undetermined classes of persons and applies to objectively determined situations. It is directed to the applicants only in their objective capacity as producers of organic agricultural products, in the same way as any other operator who is actually or potentially in an identical situation.

17 It follows from all of the foregoing that the contested regulation concerns the applicants only in their objective capacity as producers of organic products, in the same way as any other economic operator trading on the same market, and that, since the applicants have in no way proved that they are individually concerned by that regulation, the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission must be upheld.

Costs

18 Under the first paragraph of Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuc­ cessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful and the Commission has applied for costs, the applicants must be ordered to pay the costs.

II-3113

ORDER OF 9. 9. 1998 — CASE T-269/97

O n those grounds,

Registrar President

II-3114