The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) refuses to extend access to annulment proceedings for economic operators indirectly affected by general acts
In its judgment delivered on 15 May 2025 (Judgment C‑487/24 P Lorenz Kiene, Classic Tankstellen GmbH & Co. KG, eFuel GmbH, eFuel Projektentwicklung GmbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union), the CJEU dismissed the appeal brought by several companies and an individual active in the synthetic fuel sector against an EU regulation strengthening CO₂ emission performance standards for new cars. It confirmed that their action for annulment was inadmissible on the grounds that they were not individually concerned by the regulation, thereby ruling out any infringement of the right to an effective remedy.
Facts
Regulation 2023/851 amends Regulation 2019/631 to impose a 100% reduction in CO₂ emissions from new vehicles by 2035, thus aiming to eliminate internal combustion engines.
The applicants (German companies specializing in synthetic fuels and their manager) brought an action for annulment before the General Court, which was dismissed as inadmissible. They then appealed to the CJEU.
The Court of First Instance dismissed their appeal, holding that they were not individually concerned (condition of Article 263 TFEU), as the regulation applied generally to all players in the sector.
The applicants’ arguments:
In the course of the proceedings, the applicants argued that the inadmissibility of the action was not justified because they were individually concerned by the regulation. Firstly, they invoked their unique position in the synthetic fuels market (specific investments, expertise), arguing that they are pioneers in the carbon-neutral fuels market, that their business depends entirely on the existence of a market for these fuels, and that they have already made significant investments in this field. They believe that the Court of First Instance erred in holding that pioneering status was not sufficient to establish their individualization. Even on the basis of the facts acknowledged by the Court of First Instance, they claim to be part of an identifiable and restricted circle of operators particularly affected by the regulation. They refer, in this respect, to the Extramet case law (C-358/89), according to which an undertaking may be deemed individually concerned where its specific economic position distinguishes it from any other economic operator.
Their second argument is the violation of the right to an effective remedy (art. 47 of the Charter), insofar as they have no alternative remedy at national or Union level, and the denial of access to the action for annulment deprives them of the possibility of challenging a regulation which directly affects their economic existence.
Decision of the CJEU:
First of all, the Court points out that it can only review questions of law on appeal. It cannot re-examine facts or evidence, except in cases of manifest misrepresentation, which the appellants have not demonstrated with any precision.
The Court rejects the appellants’ argument that the Court of First Instance erred in law by considering that they are not individually concerned by the contested regulation. The Court confirms that the applicants are not individually concerned by the regulation, which applies to all players in the automotive sector. Their activity (synthetic fuels) does not sufficiently distinguish them from the other economic operators affected. The Court rejected the comparison with the Extramet judgment, since in that case the company was in a virtually unique situation on the market (restricted supply, dependence on a direct competitor), which is not the case here.
The Court also rejected the second plea. Firstly, Article 47 of the Charter does not allow the strict conditions of Article 263 TFEU to be circumvented. The applicants could challenge any subsequent national or European implementing acts.
There is no absolute right to direct recourse to the EU. Article 47 does not require every litigant to have automatic access to an action for annulment against a legislative act of the Union, such as the contested regulation. Secondly, even if the claimants had no remedy under national law, this does not justify an extension of the admissibility conditions laid down in the Treaty.
Practical consequences:
The Court confirms the strict interpretation of the “individual interest” criterion for direct actions against acts of general application. Companies in the synthetic fuels sector will not be able to challenge Regulation 2023/851 directly before the CJEU.
The Court reaffirms the limits of access to EU justice for individuals, even in a context of energy transition and major environmental challenges. Economic operators will have to wait for implementing acts or seek remedies at national level, within the limits of what national law allows.
