Attached is the judgement. It was given not in the sanctions context but is relevant for the sanctions practitioner for the interpretation of the concepts given for direct and individual concern of an act in JR proceedings as well as the difference between the concept of the “direct concern” and “implementing measures”. Further, all matters were considered in the context of a directive (an act which, as a general matter, has no direct and individual application for a person).
The judgement is an authority as to the following propositions: (i) substance (rather than form) shall guide whether direct and individual concern are present; (ii) the directive can be of direct and individual concern to a commercial company; (iii) in case of a directive, individual concern may be found in the circumstances when a company is de-facto the only person affected by the directive (still a highly difficult threshold to satisfy); (iv) in connection with the satisfaction of the direct concern, the discretion of the Member States to implement a directive shall be analysed in substance and with reference to the situation of an applicant; (v) the applicant may issue proceedings upon the publication of a directive and does not need to wait until it is trasposed in national law.