歐洲法院的訴訟類型，對歐盟人民最重要者，為歐洲共同體條約第230條撤銷之訴。原因在於共同體機關的行為，不法侵害歐盟人民權利時，透過撤銷之訴，歐洲法院得審查該係爭規範的合法性。但以現行條約的規定，歐盟人民不易的進入歐洲法院進行訴訟，挑戰違法的共同體機關之規範。其中一個重要的原因在於歐洲法院嚴格解釋原告適格性。
在2002年的UPA案中，負責該案的輔佐法官Jacobs在其意見書中，針對歐盟人民不易提起撤銷之訴的原因，提出建言。並進而啟發了Jégo-Quéré案的第一審法院判決，認為必須放寬原告適格性的解釋，以保障歐盟人民之權利。雖然最後於歐洲法院的審理中，皆不被採納，但其所指出的問題，即嚴格的限縮解釋當事人適格性，是造成無法保障歐盟人民的訴訟權原因，此一觀點，受到當時正在召開的歐洲制憲大會（European Convention）之重視。討論歐盟人民進入歐洲法院之權利以及司法保障等，最後並反應在歐洲憲法條約（Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe）第III-365條上。
本文以UPA案與Jégo-Quéré案作為研究歐洲法院撤銷之訴的中心案例，藉以釐清歐盟人民在提起撤銷之訴時的困境，以及實際遭遇的難題。本文發現，儘管撤銷之訴的相關規定已經修正以因應實際遭遇的難題，但歐洲憲法條約尚未生效，且其之後的法律工具與現行制度略有不同，因此仍存在許多未知的考驗。

本論文分為以下各章：
第一章為緒論，說明本論文之研究動機與目的，以及研究方法等，並說明本文之架構。
第二章則在回顧歐洲法院對於歐盟人民提出撤銷之訴，原告適格性之見解，試圖歸納出，歐洲法院對於係爭規範與當事人是否具有「直接且個別相關」的判定標準。
第三章在討論UPA案與Jégo-Quéré案的突破性見解，挑戰歐洲法院傳統以來對於原告適格之嚴格解釋。
第四章，本章從歐洲制憲大會的文獻中，分析制憲工作小組如何制訂修法方向，以保障歐盟人民的司法救濟權利，實際上是在解決司法保障與歐盟人民提起撤銷之訴的難題。
第五章總結本文之研究。

The European Community Treaties established a system of judicial review whereby the European Court could control the legality of the acts of the Institutions of the Community. In the Community legal system, private applicants have the right to challenge Community acts under the article 230 (4) EC. The action for annulment, article 230(4) EC, occupies a central position in the system of judicial review and has its origins in annulment proceedings against illegal adminstrative action, as known to the legal systems of all the Member States. But the severe interpretation of the notion of ‘individual concern’ from Article 230 (4) EC by Court of Justice and the restrictions imposed by the Treaty itself on the possibility of challenging Community acts by individuals are criticized as being against the principle of effective judicial protection and leading in many cases to the denial of justice.

  In 2002, Advocate General Jacobs in his Opinion in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA) contented that the issue at stake in UPA was whether the notion of individual concern laid down in Article 230 (4) needed to be reconsidered. On 3rd of May 2002 the Court of First Instance delivered a judgment in case Jégo-Quéré & Cie v. Commission. The judgment adopted to a big extent the Opinion delivered by Advocate General Jacobs in case UPA. But the Court of Justice has made it clear to adopt the traditional interpretation of individual concern. Furthermore, it added that, according to the system for judicial review of legality established by the Treaty, a natural or legal person can bring an action challenging a regulation only if it is concerned both directly and individually. 

  The Court of Justice clearly stated that it regards the present Community system of remedies as complete and one guaranteeing the right of effective judicial protection. If any modification of this system was to be attained, the Member States shall act under Article 48 TEU. This message was delivered when the work commenced in the European Convention, which decided to provide a forum for the deliberations in this question.

  The European Convention set up a Working Group on judicial remedies examined the question whether the currents system of judicial remedies for individuals against acts of the institutions needs to be reformed. Finally, the Convention amendment of the wording of Article 230 (4) EC.

第一章  緒論	1
第一節  研究動機與目的	1
第二節  研究方法與限制	3
第三節  本文架構	4
第二章  歐盟人民提起撤銷之訴之傳統見解	9
第一節  概說	9
第二節  訴訟之標的	12
第一項  決定	13
第二項  規章	13
第三項  兩者在撤銷之訴之區別實益	15
第三節  原告適格之標準	17
第一項  直接相關（direct concern）	17
第二項  個別相關（individual concern）	19
第一款  Plaumann案：個別相關原則之建立	19
第一目  事實經過與法院見解	20
第二目  限定群體與開放群體	20
第三目  Plaumann原則之影響	21
第二款  傳統見解之例外	27
第一目  重大經濟損害類型	28
第二目  侵害權利或違背義務類型	29
第三項  當然適格類型：特殊經濟領域	31
第一款  反傾銷案件	32
第二款  競爭法案件	33
第三款  國家補貼案件	34
第四節  小結	34
第三章  挑戰傳統見解的UPA案與Jégo-Quéré案	37
第一節  概說：挑戰「個別相關」之傳統見解	37
第二節  UPA案	38
第一項  事實經過	38
第二項  第一審法院判決	39
第三項  輔佐法官Jacobs意見書	41
第一款  先行裁決程序的侷限性	42
第二款  「個別相關」應重新解釋	45
第三款  肯定新解釋之影響	47
第一目  新解釋忠於條約之本義	47
第二目  新解釋並不會造成濫訴	48
第四款  提出新解釋的契機	48
第五款  小結	51
第四項  歐洲法院之判決	51
第三節  Jégo-Quéré案	53
第一項  事實經過	53
第二項  第一審法院判決	54
第一款  兩造主張	54
第二款  法院意見	55
第三項  Jégo-Quéré案意見書	59
第四項  歐洲法院判決意見	61
第五項  UPA案與Jégo-Quéré案所凸顯的問題	62
第四節 有效司法保障與替代撤銷之訴之其他司法救濟途徑	62
第一項  有效司法保障與歐盟人民訴訟權利	63
第二項  撤銷之訴替代性之司法救濟途徑	66
第一款  先行裁決程序	66
第二款  損害賠償之訴	67
第三款  法規不合法抗辯請求權（Plea of Illegality）	68
第四款  替代途徑可能面對的問題	69
第五節  小結	70
第四章  歐洲制憲大會對訴訟權保障的重視	73
第一節  歐洲制憲大會對UPA案與Jégo-Quéré案的回應	73
第二節  工作小組建議之方案	76
第一項  創設侵害基本權利之特別救濟途經	76
第二項  修改歐洲共同體條約第230條第4項	79
第三項  由成員國內國保障救濟途徑	81
第三節  小結	82
第五章  結論	85
參考文獻	87

中文部分
（一）書籍
王泰銓（1997），《歐洲共同體法總論》，台北：五南圖書。
王泰銓（2006），《歐洲聯盟條約與歐洲共同體條約譯文及重要參考文件》，台北：三民書局。
吳庚（2003初版），《憲法的解釋與適用》，台北：三民書局。
施啟揚（1971），《西德聯邦憲法法院論》，台北：自版
黃偉峰主編（2003），《歐洲聯盟的組織與運作》，台北：五南圖書。
陳麗娟（2005/6二版），《歐洲共同體法導論》，台北：五南圖書。
陳敏、蔡志方譯（1985），Maunz, Theodor & Zippelius, Reinhold著，《德國憲法學》。臺北市 : 國民大會憲政研討委員會。
廖福特（2003/7），《歐洲人權法》，台北：學林。

（二）期刊論文
王泰銓（2005/5），〈歐洲聯盟之法律工具〉，《淡江大學歐盟文獻中心通訊》，第6期，9-22頁，淡水。
王服清（2005/11），〈批判歐洲法院法官造法之正當性？—以歐盟成員國的國家責任制度為例〉，《月旦法學》，第126期，62-84頁，台北。
陳麗娟（2005/9），〈從歐洲法院的判決論共同體法的法律性質與優先適用的效力〉，《台灣本土法學》，第74期，221-227頁，台北。
卓恭本（2002/6），《歐洲聯盟基本權利憲章之探討》，淡江大學歐洲研究所碩士論文。

英文部分
（一）書籍
Albros-Llorens, A. (1996). Private Parties in European Community law - Challenging Community Measures. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Arnull, A. (2006). The European Court of Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, L. N., & Kennedy, T. (2000). Court of Justice of the European Communities (5th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell UK.
Chalmers, D., Hadjiemmanuil, C., Monti, G., & Tomkins, A., (2006). European Union Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craig, P. (2006). EU Administrative Law. New York: Oxford University Press
Craig, P., & De Burca, G. (2002). EU Law Text, Cases and Materials (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hartley, T. C. (2003, 5th). The Foundations of European Community Law. Oxford University Press.
Reid, K. (2004, 2nd ed.). A Practitioner’s Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights. London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.
Robertson, A. H. & Merrills, J. G. (1993). Human Right in Europe. New York: Manchester University Press.
Schermers, H. G. & Waelbroeck, D. F. (2001, 6th ed.). Judicial Protection in the European Union. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
Stein, J. & Woods, L. (2003). Textbook on EC Law (8th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. 
Tridimas, T., & Nebbia, P. (ed.). (2004). European Union Law for the Twenty-First Century: Volume 1. Oxford: Hart Publish.
Ward, A. (2001). Judicial Architecture at the Cross-Roads: Private Parties and Challenge to EC Measures Post-Jégo-Quéré. In The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies:2001 (A. Dashwood, C. Hillion, J. Spencer, & A. Ward, eds. pp. 413-444). Oxford: Hart publishing.
Ward, A. (2000). Judicial Review and the Rights of Private Parties in EC Law. New York: Oxford University Press.

（二）期刊論文
Albors-Llorens, A. (2003, March). The standing of private parties to challenge Community measures: has the European Court missed the boat? Cambridge Law Journal, 62(1), 72-92. 
Arnull, A. (2001, February). Private Applicants and the Action for Annulment since Codorniu. Common Market Law Review, 38, 7-52. 
Arnull, A. (1995, February). Private Applicants and the Action for Annulment under Art 173 of the EC Treaty. Common Market Law Review, 32, 7-49. 
Arnull, A. (1992). Challenging EC Anti-dumping Regulations: the Problem of Admissibility. European Competition Law Review, 13(2), 73-81.
Biernat, E. (2003). The Locus Standi of Private Applicants under article 230 (4) EC and the Principle of Judicial Protection in the European Community. Jean Monnet Working Paper 12/03, available in http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/03/031201.pdf.
Broek, N. (2003). A Long Hot Summer for Individual Concern? The European Court's Recent Case Law on Direct Actions by Private Parties … and a Plea for a Foreign Affairs Exception. Legal Issues of European Integration, 30(1), 61-79.
Craig, P. (2003). Standing, Rights, and the Structure of Legal Argument. European Public Law, 9(4), 493-508.
Granger, M. (2003). Towards a liberalisation of standing conditions for individuals seeking judicial review of Community acts. The Modern Law Review, 66, 124-138. 
Greaves, R. (1986). Locus Standi under Article 173 when Seeking Annulment of a Regulation. European Law Review, 11(2), 119-133.
Hanf, D. (2002, July). Facilitating Private Applicants' Access to the European Courts ? On the Possible Impact of the CFI's Ruling in Jégo-Quéré. German Law Journal, 3(7), available in http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=166
Hanf, D. (2002, August). Kicking the ball into the Member States' field: the Court's response to Jégo-Quéré. German Law Journal, 3(8), available in http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=171
Kombos, C. C. (2005). The Recent Case Law on Locus Standi of Private Applicants under Art. 230 (4) EC: A Missed Opportunity or A Velvet Revolution? European Integration online Papers (EIoP), Vol. 9 (2005) N°17, available in http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2005-017a.htm
Neuwahl, N. A. (1996). 'Article 173 Paragraph 4 EC: Past, Present and Possible Future. European Law Review, 21(1), 17-31. 
Ragolle, F. (2003). Access to justice for private applicants in the Community legal order: recent revolutions. European Law Review, 28(1), 90-101. 
Schwarze, J. (2004). The Legal Protection of the Individual against Regulations in European Union Law. European Public Law, 10(2), 285-303.
Usher, J. A. (2003). Direct and Individual Concern – An Effective Remedy or A Conventional Solution. European Law Review, 28(5), 575-600.
Varju, M. (2004). The Debate on the Future of Standing under Article 230(4) EC in the European Convention. European Public Law, 10(1), 43-56.
(三) 官方文獻
Court of Justice Annual Report 2006, Luxembourg. available in http://www.curia.europa.eu/en/instit/presentationfr/rapport.htm
CONV 72/02, Mandate of the Working Group on the Charter. available in http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/cv00/00072en2.pdf
CONV 116/02, “Modalities and consequences of incorporation into the Treaties of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and accession of the Community/Union to the ECHR”. available in http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/cv00/00116en2.pdf
CONV 221/02,Contribution by Mr Jacob Söderman, European Ombudsman: "Proposals for Treaty changes", available in http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/cv00/00221en2.pdf
CONV 572/03, Oral presentation by M. Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias, President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, to the "discussion circle” on the Court of Justice on 17 February 2003. available in http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/cv00/cv00572en03.pdf
Working Group II, Working Document 19, Hearing of Judge Mr. Vassilios Skouris, available in http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/wd2/3057.pdf
Working Group II, Working Document 21, ‘The question of effective judicial remedies and access of individuals to the European Court of Justice’, available in http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/wd2/3299.pdf
CERCLE I Working Document 03, Contribution of Prof. Dr. Jürgen Meyer, ‘Fundamental Complaint’. available in http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/wdcir1/8607.pdf
（四）歐洲法院判決
Case 16-17/62, Confédération Nationale des Producteurs de Fruits et Légumes v. Commission [1962] ECR-471.
Case 25/62, Plaumann & Co. v.Commission [1963] ECR 95.
Case 106-107/63 Toepfer v. Commission [1965] ECR 405.
Case 1/64, Glucoseries Réunies v. Commission [1964] ECR-417.
Case 38/64, Getreide-Import Gesellschaft v Commission [1965] ECR-263.
Cases 10 & 18/68, Eridania v Commission [1963] ECR-459.
Case 69/69, SA Alcan Aluminium Raeren and others v. Commission [1970] ECR-385.
Case 41-4/70, International Fruit Co. NV v. Commission [1971] ECR-411.
Case 62/70, Werner A. Bock KG v. Commission [1971] ECR-908.
Case 26/76 Metro v. Commission [1977] ECR-1875.
Case 113/77, NTN Toyo Bearing Company and others v. Council [1979] ECR-1185.
Case 11/82, A.E. Piraiki-Patraiki v. Commission [1985] ECR-207.
Case 239 and 275/82, Allied Corporation and others v. Commission [1984] ECR-1005.
Case 294/83, Les Verts v. Parliamant [1986] ECR-1339.
Case 169/84, COFAZ SA v. Commission [1986] ECR-391.
Case 222/84, Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR-1651.
Case C-298/89, Gibraltar v. Council [1993] ECR I-3605.
Case C-309/89, Codorniu SA v. Council [1994] ECR I-1853.
Case C-358/89, Extramet Industrie SA v. Council [1991] ECR I-2501.
Case C-188/92 Textilwerke Deggendorf v. Germany [1994] ECR I-833.
Case T-585/93, Greenpeace v. Commission [1995] ECR II-2205.

Cases T-172/98, 175-177/98, Salamander and others v. Parliament and Council [2000] ECR-II 2487.
Case C-41/99 P, Sadam Zuccherifici v. Council [2001] ECR I-4239.
Cases C-300/99, Area Cova and others v. Council [2001] ECR I-983
Case C-50/00 P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council [2002] ECR I-6677.
Case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré v Commission [2002] ECR II-2365.
Case C-263/02 P, Commission v. Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA [2004] ECR-3425.