Judicial Protection

Question 1

Differdange

Answer 1

Case of no direct concern because of wide legislation, so no locus standi

Question 2

Plaumann

Answer 2

Case of individual concern, which was denied because of wide reasoning by Plaumann

Question 3

Toepfer

Answer 3

Case of individual concern, which was approved because Toepfer could prove that he had just invested in corn right after Germany changed its law, and rightbefore the EC reversed it

Question 4

Piraiki-Patraiki

Answer 4

Case of individual concern, which was approved because they had outstanding cotton exports to France and were thus directly affected by the law

Question 5

Case of no direct concern because of wide legislation, so no locus standi

Answer 5

Differdange

Question 6

Case of individual concern, which was denied because of wide reasoning by the claimant

Answer 6

Plaumann

Question 7

Case of individual concern, which was approved because the claimant could prove that he had just invested in corn right after Germany changed its law, and right before the EC reversed it

Answer 7

Toepfer

Question 8

Case of individual concern, which was approved because the claimants had outstanding cotton exports to France and were thus directly affected by the law

Answer 8

Piraiki-Patraiki