Greenpeace and Others v Commission [1998] ECR I-2305

• As sought the annulment of a Commission decision granting financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund for the construction of 2 power plants in the Canary Islands. As were individual fishermen, farmers, residents & also environmental interest groups, concerned by the impact of the development on tourism & the environment.

• CFI rejected the argument that standing should be accorded merely to those who have suffered harm, instead restating the Plaumann test, and requiring that direct effect on Applicants and individual concern to Applicants is needed.

  • By this measure Applicants did not have standing since the fishermen, local residents, etc. were not individually concerned, as distinct from other people living, moving into or travelling in the vicinity of the plants, while pressure groups cannot have standing unless their members are individually concerned and directly affected. 

ECJ (upholding the decision about standing on appeal)

Where, as in the present case, the specific situation of the applicant was not taken into consideration in the adoption of the act, which concerns him in a general and abstract fashion and, in fact, like any other person in the same situation, the applicant is not individually concerned by the act.

The same applies to associations which claim to have locus standi on the basis of the fact that the persons whom they represent are individually concerned by the contested decision. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraph, that is not the case.

RELATED CASES

• Plaumann & Co v Commission