Hi, I need help with essay on See Below Bachelor. Paper must be at least 1500 words. Please, no plagiarized work!Download file to see previous pages... Also on the basis of Article 230 EC, individuals

Hi, I need help with essay on See Below Bachelor. Paper must be at least 1500 words. Please, no plagiarized work!

Also on the basis of Article 230 EC, individuals and other private parties will always retain the jurisdiction to challenge decisions addressed to them.

As far as the claims of Jacques St Malo, Pierre St Michel, and Sainsbury's Supermarkets are concerned they will be subject to the limitation to this principle which is the personal interest principle. Furthermore this "personal interest" will only be held to exist where the annulment of the act can produce legal effects for these applicants.1 Private parties do not have standing to act in the interest of the law or of the Community in general.2 Private parties like the ones mentioned above therefore can also challenge decisions addressed to other persons, as well as regulations or other general legislative acts. However, they can only do this when they can show that these are of 'direct and individual concern' to them. .3

The Court of Justice has interpreted the concept of 'direct concern' to mean that a direct causality must exist between the act that is challenged and the legal situation of the individual challenging that act.4 A measure will be of direct concern if it affects the legal position of the defendant/applicant directly and leaves no discretion to the addressees of the measure who are responsible for its implementation.5Such an implementation has to be automatic and a result of Community rules without the application of other intermediate rules6.

For determining individual concern, the case Plaumann v. Commission7was a seminal one and gave judicial review a rather restricted application in the Court of Justice8 where the court defined applicants as individually concerned if the decision or act "'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 and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually (para 107)

Based on the Court's view in Plaumann where he was affected by the decision as an importer of Clementines, and it was held that this did not distinguish him in relation to the contested decision as in the case of the addressee.Since the test in this case requires the applicants to belong to a closed category, membership of which is fixed and ascertainable at the date of the adoption of the contested measure it would seem that Pierre St Michel, a Breton poultry farmer, who intends to export poultry to the UK this month and .Sainsbury's Supermarkets, who sell French and other countries' poultry might not have locus standi under this test. Later cases have followed the trend in Plaumann and in Toepfer v. Commission9 the applicant was held to be individually concerned, because the issue concerned only those importers, who applied for an import license particular day. 10.

However in case Spijker Kwasten v.