EU Law: Analysis of Mr. Perrin and Commission Regulation 1106/2020

This report provides a legal memorandum analyzing the case of Mr. Perrin and his potential challenge to Commission Regulation (EU) 1106/2020. The report begins by determining Mr. Perrin's Locus Standi, concluding that he must pursue judicial review. It then examines whether the Commission's decision can be challenged in the Court of Justice of the EU under Article 263 TFEU, considering the regulation's reviewability and its direct and individual concern on Mr. Perrin. The analysis references relevant case law, including IBM, Plaumann, and International Fruit Company, to determine if Mr. Perrin has standing to challenge the regulation. The report concludes that Mr. Perrin and Sunshine Dessert can challenge the Commission's decision due to its direct impact on their business, particularly the import duties on possilberries, and the Commission's failure to provide reasons for the changes or consult with those affected. The report includes a bibliography of relevant case studies and academic sources.

Running Head: EU LAW
EU Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1EU LAW
MEMORANDUM-2
To: EU Division (Trainees)
From: Alison McBeal
Re: Mr. Perrin and Commission Regulation (EU) 1106/2020
Date: 14 April 2020
The first thing to determine in this case is the Locus Standi of Mr. Perrin. As he is not a
privileged or quasi-privileged person he is not liable for automatic Locus Standi. Therefore,
the ground of judicial review is the only option for non-privilege entity against the ill-effect
of an Act. The second issue, in this case, is whether the decision of the European
Commission can be challenged in the Court Of Justice of the EU. Under Article 263 of The
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a natural or legal person can request for a
judicial review against a reviewable legislative or regulatory act which has been addressed to
them or has a direct or individual concern upon the person's interest. The first thing is to be
determined whether the regulation is reviewable or not. In the IBM1case, it has been held that
a reviewable act is those which has some legal binding effect and capable of affecting the
legal admittance of the person in respect of any fact in issue by changing his or her legal
position. Therefore, this regulation is said to be reviewable as it has some direct legal
implication upon persons involved in the business of possilberries. Under judicial review, the
first thing to be considered is whether the changed measure was directly addressed to Mr.
Perrin or Not. It can be seen that the changes are not directly addressed to Mr. Perrin and
sunshine dissert as it applies to everyone involved in the import of possilberries2. It is a
regulatory law and not a legislative Act as can be seen from the Title of the Act3.
1 Case 60/81 International Business Machines Corporation v Commission (1981) Case 60/81
2 Case 222/83, Municipality of Differdange v Commission [1984] ECR 2889.
3 Cracknell, Arthur P. "UAVs: regulations and law enforcement." International Journal of Remote Sensing 38.8-
10 (2017): 3054-3067.

2EU LAW
The next question is the issue is whether Mr. Perrin has any individual concern over the case.
In the case of Plaumann4, it has been held that a person is said to have an individual concern
if an Act is addressed to them or to the group to which they belong and no other person has
any interest upon the implementation of the act except such person or group by some peculiar
reason or by some reason for which they are treated as a distinctive group. The case further
held that the impact of the decision of an individual is not enough they must have to show
that they belong to a distinct group and no one in the future can join the same. Therefore, the
question of individual concern is irrelevant in this case. Therefore, direct concern means that
the Act in question has directly affected the individual’s legal position by imposing an
obligation or taking away the old obligation. Furthermore, such imposition has been made
without any discretion to the addressees entrusted with the execution of the Act5. The
application of the act was automatic without any function of intermediate rules. Therefore, it
is affecting the legal position of Mr. Perrin and Sunshine Dessert and further, the
Commission did not follow the rules of giving the reason for changing the rate of duty or did
not even consult with the group of people that are going to get impacted by such high change
of import rate.
Recommendation:
It can be said that Perrin and Sunshine Dessert can challenge the decision of the Commission
and ask for a judicial review of the Commission Regulation (EU) 1106/2020, passed on the
11th of February 2016 as it is directly impacting the business of possilberry traders by its high
import duty provision.
4 Case 25/62, Plaumann & Co v Commission [1963] ECR 95.
5 Cases 41-44/70, NV International Fruit Company v Commission [1971] ECR 411.

3EU LAW
Bibliography:
Case studies:
Case 222/83, Municipality of Differdange v Commission [1984] ECR 2889.
Case 25/62, Plaumann & Co v Commission [1963] ECR 95.

4EU LAW
Case 60/81, International Business Machines Corporation v Commission (1981) Case 60/81
Cases 41-44/70, NV International Fruit Company v Commission [1971] ECR 411.
Cracknell, Arthur P. "UAVs: regulations and law enforcement." International Journal of
Remote Sensing 38.8-10 (2017): 3054-3067.