Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 May 2015 —

Ackermann Saatzucht and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑559/14)

‛Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 — Compliance measures for users from the Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization in the Union — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’

1. 

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope except for legislative measures — Regulation on measures concerning compliance by users in the Union with the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation — Regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure — Not included (Arts 114 TFEU, 192(1) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 511/2014) (see paras 21-25)

2. 

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Conditions cumulative in nature — Inadmissibility of an action where only one of those conditions absent (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 28)

3. 

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing information obligations on users of genetic resources — Action by acquirers of protected varieties, claiming exemption from any information obligation by virtue of another regulation — No restricted category of economic operators — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 511/2014, Art. 4(3)(b); Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 15) (see paras 29-34, 37, 38)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 59).

Operative part

1. 

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. 

There is no need to rule on the application of the European Seed Association (ESA) for leave to intervene.

3. 

Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.