Ps, fishermen, sought to challenge a regulation under art 230 on the grounds of proportionality, since the regulation required a change in the size of a fishing net that caused it to catch far less fish. CFI accepted that to apply the Plaumann definition of individual concern would exclude P from standing and that this would infringe their right to effective judicial protection. Therefore it reinterpreted the 230 test along lines set out below. ECJ rejected this, saying that 230 had the meaning given to it in Plaumann and that there was effective judicial protection due to ability to use 234.
CFI: Adopted AG Jacobs’ test, saying that P should be treated as individually concerned where by a C measure of general application, if the measure affected his legal position by restricting his rights or imposing obligations, in a way that was both ‘definite’ and ‘immediate’.
ECJ: Upheld reasoning in UPA, with court saying that criteria for standing under 230 would not be relaxed, even where this meant that an individual could not challenge EU legislation without having first contravened it. The right to effective judicial protection could not set aside the wording of treaty article 230 (which it interpreted as having the Plaumann meaning). Court again said that the combination of art 230 and 234 created effective legal protection.