T-257/04 Poland v Commission, judgment of 10 June 2009

In November 2003, on the basis of the 2003 Treaty of Accession, the Commission
adopted Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, which introduced, inter alia, by way of
transitional derogation from the Community rules which would otherwise be applicable,
a system of charges on holders of surplus stocks of certain agricultural products which
appear in the list contained in that regulation. In April 2004 the Commission adopted
Regulation (EC) No 735/2004, under which seven agricultural products were added to
that list.
Poland brought an action before the Court of First Instance for the annulment of
Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 735/2004.
In so far as it concerns Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, the action was brought after the
expiry of the time-limit of two months laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance considers that the action is inadmissible as
regards the agricultural products contained in the initial version of the list which appears
in that regulation.
The Court of First Instance rejected the various arguments submitted by Poland,
according to which the time-limit for bringing an action started to run only at the time of
its accession. As regards the argument that Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 was not
published in the 20 official languages, the Court of First Instance found that the
Commission was not required to publish that regulation in Polish in November 2003.
Concerning the fact that the regulation at issue entered into force only subject to, and
on the date of, the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession, that is to say, on 1 May
2004, the Court of First Instance held that that does not affect the start of the timelimit
for bringing an action, which is defined not by the date of the entry into force of the
contested measure but by the date of its challengeability, namely the completion of all
the requisite formalities as to publicity. Lastly, the Court observed that the Community rules concerning procedural time-limits have to be strictly applied and that they may not be derogated from save where the circumstances are quite exceptional, which Poland has not demonstrated.
The Court of First Instance noted that the right to effective judicial protection has not
been infringed. Prior to its accession, a new Member State may, like any non-member
state and any sub-state body, contest the legality of a Community act within the
time-limit laid down in its capacity as a legal person if it is directly and individually
concerned by that measure. The Court of First Instance refered to its settled case-law
that a measure of general application such as a regulation can be of individual concern
to natural or legal persons only if it affects them by reason of certain attributes peculiar
to them or by reason of the factual situation which differentiates them from all other
persons. That was true of Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 when it imposed various obligations on Poland. By contrast, the Court of First Instance considered the action admissible in so far as it
also concerns the seven agricultural products which Regulation (EC) No 735/2004 added
to the list appearing in Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, given that the time-limit for
bringing an action to contest Regulation (EC) No 735/2004 had not yet expired when the
application was lodged. It observes that, where a provision in a regulation is amended, a
fresh right of action arises, not only against that provision alone, but also against all the
provisions which, even if not amended, form a whole with it. In addition, the Court of First Instance dismissesd the action on the substance.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/arrets/04t257_en.pdf