Examples of using Directly and individually in English and their translations into Finnish
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Official/political
-
Computer
-
Programming
It held that Infront was directly and individually concerned by the contested letter for the following reasons.
It contended that the applicant did not have locus standi because, inter alia,it was not directly and individually concerned by the decision granting the right.
It follows that the applicants are directly and individually concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, by the contested decision and that the application must be declared admissible in its entirety.
The decision granting the right is not exempt from judicial review inasmuch as any person directly and individually affected by it may challenge it before the Board of Appeal.
Any person shall have the right to appeal against decisions taken by the competent authorities pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2 which concern him directly and individually.
Consulting SMEs and consumers directly and individually has proven to be ineffective, anecdotal and unrepresentative.
Firms may challenge decisions which are addressed to them, ordecisions addressed to other firms by which they are"directly and individually concerned" Article 173 EC.
It does not go without saying that the committal order directly and individually concerns the accused- which is a general condition for the admissibility of an individual action.
Under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, any natural or legal person may institute proceedings against decisions which, although in the form of a regulation,concern that person directly and individually.
On the other hand, it disputes the assessment that Infront was directly and individually concerned by the decision finding that the measures notified by the United Kingdom complied with Community law.
I hope that, following this vote,the legally binding nature of the Charter, once implemented, will enable European citizens to directly and individually refer matters to the EU's Court of Justice.
The Council's fourth plea is that the applicants are not directly and individually concerned by the contested measures and therefore lack standing to bring proceedings under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty.
It should be 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 Commission contends that the application isinadmissible on two grounds: the applicant is not directly and individually concerned by the Decision of 6 September 1996, and it has no interest in obtaining its annulment.
I would point out that that provision makes an actionfor annulment brought by any natural or legal person against a decision of which it is not the addressee subject to the dual condition that the decision must concern it directly and individually.
Any Member State, any member of the Administrative Board and any third party directly and individually concerned may refer any act undertaken by the Agency to the Commission in order to have its lawfulness verified.
Under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC actions brought by individuals against acts of which they are not the addressees are admissible subject to the twofold condition that the applicants be directly and individually concerned by the contested act.
It follows that if the complainant has the status of‘party concerned', within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC,he may be regarded as directly and individually concerned by the contested decision, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, in so far as he is challenging the failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
The CFI ruled that, although the referral decision did not affect the competitive position of the applicants since only the decision of the Spanish competition authority could have such an effect,they were directly and individually affected by the referral decision.
The Court of First Instance added that the fact that those persons are expressly named in Annex I to the regulation, so thatthey appear to be directly and individually concerned by it, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, in no way affects the general nature of that prohibition which is effective erga omnes, as is made clear, in particular, by Article 11 of the regulation.
Under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, the admissibility of an action for annulment brought against a regulation by a natural or legal person is subject to the condition that the contested regulation is, in actual fact,a decision which concerns that person directly and individually.
The Federal Republic of Germany and also Glunz and OSB maintain that the contested judgment infringed the fourth paragraphof Article 230 EC, since the Court of First Instance considered that Kronofrance was‘directly and individually concerned' by the contested decisionand therefore held that the action brought by that company was admissible.
Under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, the admissibility of an application for the annulment ofa regulation introduced by a natural or legal person is subject to the condition that the contested regulation is in reality a decision which concerns that person directly and individually.
Furthermore, although Article 243 of the Customs Code grants all traders a right to appeal against decisions taken by thecustoms authorities which relate to the application of customs legislation, and which concern them directly and individually, Article 245 of the Customs Code leaves it to the Member States to determine the provisions for the implementation of the appeals procedure.
The Commission challenges the Court of First Instance's findings that Infront was directly, and individually, concerned by the contested measure, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, under which any natural or legal person may institute proceedings against a decision which, although in the form of a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former.
Guarantees provided for in Article 88(2) EC, the mere fact that it has the status of a“party concerned” within the meaning of that provision is sufficient for it to be regarded as directly and individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC[ 24]….
It maintains, essentially, that the Commission encouraged it to bring the action, that the decisions to grant the aid in question fall within its exclusive competence under German law, that that aid was at least partially financed by it,that its representatives took part in the administrative procedure, and that it is in any event directly and individually concerned by the Decision.
They claim that Court wrongly concluded, in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the contested judgment, that any person potentially‘concerned' by the formal procedure for examiningaid under Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999 was to be regarded as directly and individually concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, by an approval decision taken at the end of the preliminary examination stage, and that it was therefore unnecessary to show that Kronofrance's competitive position was‘substantially' affected by that decision.
Therefore, where, by an action for annulment of a Commission decision taken at the end of a preliminary examination, an applicant seeks to secure compliance with the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 88(2) EC,the mere fact that it has the status of a‘party concerned' within the meaning of that provision is sufficient for it to be regarded as directly and individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
However, a national court may not refer a question on the validity of the decision of the Board at the request of a natural or legal person which had the opportunity to bring an action for annulment of that decision,in particular if it was directly and individually concerned by that decision, but had not done so within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.