Breaches include acts and failures to act.

France argued in its defence that another Member State had failed to fulfil a similar obligation and that the Commission had not brought proceedings.

Defence based on reciprocity rejected.

Discriminatory French provisions on employment in the merchant fleet were not enforced in practice.

Actual or administrative compliance is no defence.

Failure to implement a directive due to the bombing of a data-processing centre.

This could amount to force majeure and provide a defence to ­non-implementation but a delay of four years was inexcusable.

Failure to implement a directive on fitting tachographs to lorries due to cost and political difficulties.

Defence based on economic and political difficulties rejected.

Star Fruit complained to the Commission about breaches of [EU] law by France.

The Commission has a discretion, not a duty, to commence proceedings.

The applicant sought to challenge a regulation concerning fishing-net mesh sizes.

The Court of Justice reaffirmed the Plaumann test for individual concern.

IBM sought to challenge a letter from the Commission setting out its intention to institute competition proceedings.

‘Reviewable act’: ‘any measure the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position’.

The applicant sought to challenge a regulation concerning fishing-net mesh sizes.

The Court of First Instance proposed that an individual should be considered individually concerned by a regulation if it ‘affects his legal position, in a manner which is both definite and immediate, by restricting his rights or by imposing obligations on him’.

A Commission decision addressed to Luxembourg authorised it to grant aid to steel producers, provided they reduced production capacity.

The decision left the national authorities, and the companies, discretion in implementation in the choice of factories to be closed. The exercise of that discretion affected the applicant, which was not therefore directly concerned.

Plaumann, a clementine importer, sought to challenge a Commission decision addressed to Germany, refusing it authorisation to reduce customs duties on clementines.

Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed are individually concerned only if the decision affects them ‘by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons’.

The applicants sought to annul a Commission decision authorising France to impose quotas on cotton yarn imports from Greece.

The possibility that France would not use its discretion was ‘purely theoretical’; it had already restricted Greek yarn imports and requested permission to impose even stricter quotas. The applicants were therefore directly concerned by the decision.

UPA’s challenge to a regulation withdrawing aid for olive oil producers had been held inadmissible by the Court of First Instance. UPA had failed to establish individual concern.

On appeal to the Court of Justice, the A-G proposed a new test for individual concern: ‘the measure has, or is liable to have, a substantial adverse effect on his interests’. The Court of Justice rejected this test, reaffirming the existing case law.

The applicants sought damages in respect of a regulation imposing production levies.

The institution’s conduct must be ‘verging on the arbitrary’.

The applicant claimed damages in respect of a regulation requiring the purchase of skimmed milk powder for use in poultry feed.

Where the institution concerned acted with a wide discretion, the applicant must show that the institution manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its powers.

Damages claim concerning withdrawal of production subsidies.

The damage caused must be a sufficiently direct consequence of the institution’s breach.

Appeal against a Court of First Instance decision rejecting Bergaderm’s damages claim relating to a directive on cosmetics ingredients.

The same conditions apply to state liability and EU liability. The right to reparation arises where the rule infringed confers rights on individuals, the breach is sufficiently serious, and there is a direct causal link between the breach and the damage.

Action concerning the Commission’s refusal to bring enforcement proceedings against Germany.

The applicant must establish a wrongful or illegal act, damage, and causation.

Action concerning a regulation on sugar prices.

The breach must be a sufficiently flagrant violation (sufficiently serious breach (HNL)) of a superior rule of law for the protection of individuals.