Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62011CJ0583
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2013:625
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Docket Number: C‑583/11
• Date: 03 October 2013
• Procedure Type: Recurso de anulación

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

3 October 2013 ( *1 )

‛Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Trade in seal products — Restrictions on importing and marketing such products — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Right of natural or legal persons to institute proceedings — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Concept of ‘regulatory act’ — Legislative act — Fundamental right to effective judicial protection’

In Case C‑583/11 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 21 November 2011,

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, established in Ottawa (Canada),

Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, established in Qikiqtarjuaq (Canada),

Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, established in Pangnirtung (Canada),

Jaypootie Moesesie, residing in Qikiqtarjuaq,

Allen Kooneeliusie, residing in Qikiqtarjuaq,

Toomasie Newkingnak, residing in Qikiqtarjuaq,

David Kuptana, residing in Ulukhaktok (Canada),

Karliin Aariak, residing in Iqaluit (Canada),

Canadian Seal Marketing Group, established in Quebec (Canada),

Ta Ma Su Seal Products, Inc., established in Cap-aux-Meules (Canada),

Fur Institute of Canada, established in Ottawa,

NuTan Furs, Inc., established in Catalina (Canada),

GC Rieber Skinn AS, established in Bergen (Norway),

Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland), established in Nuuk, Greenland (Denmark),

Johannes Egede, residing in Nuuk,

Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK), established in Nuuk,

represented by J. Bouckaert, H. Viaene and D. Gillet, avocats,

appellants,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Parliament, represented by I. Anagnostopoulou, D. Gauci and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents,

Council of the European Union, represented by M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents,

defendants at first instance,

supported by:

European Commission, represented by P. Oliver, E. White and K. Mifsud‑Bonnici, acting as Agents,

Kingdom of the Netherlands,

interveners at first instance,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, Vice-President, acting as President, A. Tizzano, R. Silva de Lapuerta, T. von Danwitz (Rapporteur), A. Rosas and M. Berger, Presidents of Chambers, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits, A. Ó Caoimh, A. Arabadjiev, J.‑J. Kasel, M. Safjan, D. Šváby, A. Prechal and C. Vajda, Judges

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: V. Tourrès, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 November 2012,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 17 January 2013,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By their appeal, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, Mr Moesesie, Mr Kooneeliusie, Mr Newkingnak, Mr Kuptana, Ms Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products, Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs, Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC‑Greenland), Mr Egede and Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) request that the Court set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 6 September 2011 in Case T-18/10 [2011] ECR II-5599 (‘the order under appeal’), whereby the General Court dismissed the action brought by the appellants and by Mr Agathos for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36, ‘the contested regulation’) as being inadmissible.

Legal context

The contested regulation

2 According to Article 1 of the contested regulation, its subject matter is the establishment of ‘harmonised rules concerning the placing on the market of seal products’.

3 Under Article 2(4) of the contested regulation, ‘Inuit’ means ‘indigenous members of the Inuit homeland, namely those arctic and subarctic areas where, presently or traditionally, Inuit have aboriginal rights and interests, recognised by Inuit as being members of their people and includes Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit, Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik (Russia)’.

4 As regards the conditions for placing seal products on the market, Article 3 of that regulation provides: ‘1. The placing on the market of seal products shall be allowed only where the seal products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities and contribute to their subsistence. These conditions shall apply at the time or point of import for imported products. 2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1: (a) the import of seal products shall also be allowed where it is of an occasional nature and consists exclusively of goods for the personal use of travellers or their families. The nature and quantity of such goods shall not be such as to indicate that they are being imported for commercial reasons; (b) the placing on the market of seal products shall also be allowed where the seal products result from by-products of hunting that is regulated by national law and conducted for the sole purpose of the sustainable management of marine resources. Such placing on the market shall be allowed only on a non‑profit basis. The nature and quantity of the seal products shall not be such as to indicate that they are being placed on the market for commercial reasons. The application of this paragraph shall not undermine the achievement of the objective of this Regulation. 3. The Commission shall, in accordance with the management procedure referred to in Article 5(2), issue technical guidance notes setting out an indicative list of the codes of the Combined Nomenclature which may cover seal products subject to this Article. 4. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, measures for the implementation of this Article, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 5(3).’

Regulation (EU) No 737/2010

5 On the basis of Article 3(4) of the contested regulation, the Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 (OJ 2010 L 216, p. 1).

6 That regulation, according to Article 1 thereof, ‘lays down detailed rules for the placing on the market of seal products pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009’.

The procedure before the General Court and the order under appeal

7 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 11 January 2010, the appellants and Mr Agathos brought an action for the annulment of the contested regulation.

8 The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each raised an objection of inadmissibility, under Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission were granted leave to intervene before the General Court in support of the forms of order of the Parliament and the Council.

9 The General Court upheld that objection in holding that the appellants and Mr Agathos did not satisfy the conditions of admissibility for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

10 First, the General Court held that, although the contested regulation was adopted on the basis of the EC Treaty, the conditions of admissibility of the action, which was brought after the entry into force of the FEU Treaty, have to be examined on the basis of Article 263 TFEU.

11 The General Court then examined the admissibility of the action before it. In that context, it first assessed the concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. In that regard, the General Court undertook a literal, historical and teleological interpretation of that provision and made the following findings in paragraphs 41 to 51 of the order under appeal: ‘41 In the first place and as a reminder, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC allowed natural and legal persons to institute proceedings against decisions as acts of individual application and against acts of general application such as a regulation which is of direct concern to those persons and affects them by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee of a decision (see, to that effect, Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, 107, and Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, paragraph 36). 42 The fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, even though it omits the word ‘decision’ reproduces those two possibilities and adds a third. It permits the institution of proceedings against individual acts, against acts of general application which are of direct and individual concern to a natural or legal person and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures. It is apparent from the ordinary meaning of the word ‘regulatory’ that the acts covered by that third possibility are also of general application. 43 Against that background, it is clear that that possibility does not relate to all acts of general application, but to a more restricted category, namely regulatory acts. 44 The first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU sets out a number of categories of acts of the European Union which may be subject to a review of legality, namely, first, legislative acts and...