Model T307 Preset Tuning Clock Radio with MP3 line-in and Nature Sounds

CAUTION

RISK OF ELECTRIC SHOCK DO NOT OPEN

CAUTION:

TO REDUCE THE RISK OF ELECTRIC SHOCK, DO NOT REMOVE COVER OR BACK OF UNIT. NO USER-SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE. REFER SERVICING TO QUALIFIED SERVICE PERSONNEL.

WARNING:

TO REDUCE THE RISK OF FIRE OR ELECTRIC SHOCK, DO NOT EXPOSE THIS APPLIANCE TO RAIN OR MOISTURE.
The lightning flash with arrowhead in an equilateral triangle is intended to alert the user of the presence of uninsulated dangerous voltage within the products enclosure that may be of sufficient magnitude to constitute a risk of electric shock. The exclamation point within an equilateral triangle is intended to alert the user of the presence of important operating and maintenance (servicing) instructions in the literature accompanying the appliance.
The symbols above are located at the back of the cabinet.
CAUTION: To prevent electric shock, match wide blade of plug to wide slot. Fully insert. ATTENTION: Pour viter les choc lectriques. Introduire la lame la plus large de la fiche dans la borne correspondante de la prises et pousser jusquau fond.
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the condition that this device does not cause harmful interference.
A Consumer Guide to Product Safety
This unit has been designed and manufactured to assure your personal safety. Improper use can result in potential electrical shock or fire hazards. Please read all the safety and operating instructions carefully before installation and use. Keep these instructions handy for future reference. Take special note, adhere to all warning, and always follow the instructions on the unit and in the instruction and service manuals. 1. Water and Moisture The unit should not be used near water. For example: near a bathtub, washbowl, kitchen sink, laundry tub, swimming pool or in a wet basement. 2. Ventilation The unit should be situated so that its location or position does not interfere with its proper ventilation. For example, it should not be situated on a bed, sofa, rug or similar surface that may block ventilation openings. Also, it should not be placed in a built-in installation, such as a bookcase or cabinet that may impede the flow of air through the ventilation openings. 3. Heat The unit should be situated away from heat sources such as radiators, heat registers, stoves or other appliances (including amplifiers) that produce heat. 4. Power Sources The unit should be connected to a power supply only of the type described in the operating instructions or as marked on the appliance itself. 5. Grounding or Polarization This product is equipped with a polarized alternating current line plug. (a plug having one blade wider than the other) As a safety feature this plug will fit into the power outlet only one way. If you are unable to fit the plug fully into the outlet, try reversing the plug. If the plug still fails to fit, contact your electrician to replace your obsolete outlet. Do not defeat the safety purpose of the polarized plug by forcing the plug into the outlet. 6. Power-cord Protection Power supply cords should be routed so that they are not likely to be walked on or pinched by items placed upon or against them. It is always best to have a clear area from where the cord exits the unit to where it is plugged into an AC outlet. 7. Cleaning Unplug this product from the wall outlet before cleaning. Do not use liquid cleaners or aerosol cleaners. Use a damp cloth for cleaning. 8. Non-Use Periods The power cord of the unit should be unplugged from the outlet when it is to be left unused for a long period of time. 9. Object and Liquid Entry Care should be taken so that objects do not fall and liquids are not spilled into an enclosure through openings. 10. Attachments Do not use attachments not recommended by the product manufacturer as they may cause hazards. 11. Lightning For added protection for this product during a lightning storm, or when it is left unattended and unused for long periods of time, unplug it from the wall outlet and disconnect the antenna or cable system. This will prevent damage to the product due to lightning and power-line surges. 12. Overloading Do not overload wall outlets, extension cords, or integral convenience receptacles as this can result in a risk of fire or electric shock. 13. Damage Require Service The unit should be serviced by qualified service personnel when: A. The power supply cord or plug has been damaged. B. Objects have fallen into or liquid has been spilled into the enclosure. C. The unit has been exposed to rain. D. The unit has been dropped or the enclosure damaged. E. The unit does not appear to operate normally or exhibits a marked change in performance. 14. Servicing The user should not attempt to service the unit beyond that described in the users operating instructions. All other servicing should be referred to qualified service personnel. 15. Safety Check Upon completion of any service or repairs to this product, ask the service technician to perform safety checks to determine that the product is in proper operating condition. 16. Antenna Do not connect to an external antenna. For questions or comments regarding this or other products, please call our toll-free number 1-800-888-4491.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS
Installation and Maintenance

Installation

1. Remove the unit and all packing materials from the carton. You should save packing materials in case unit needs to be returned for service. If you do not wish to save the materials, please dispose of them properly. 2. Place the unit on a stable, level surface, close to an AC outlet, out of direct sunlight, and away from sources of dust, dirt, heat, water, moisture, vibration, and strong magnetic fields. 3. After installing the batteries (see below) and reading the Maintenance notes, plug the AC cord into an outlet.
Sure Alarm Battery Backup Installation
It is strongly recommended that 2 AAA alkaline batteries be installed into the unit, as directed below, to activate the Sure
Alarm battery backup feature. In the event that the AC power cord is disconnected or a power failure or other interruption occurs, the Sure Alarm system will maintain the clock and alarm settings for the life of the batteries, ensuring that the alarm will sound at the set time (note: while operating on battery power, all set alarms will sound as a buzzer). When power has been restored, the clock will cease using the battery power, and will once again operate on AC power. 1. Gently turn the unit over and remove the battery compartment door. 2. Install 2 "AAA" batteries (alkaline batteries are recommended for longer life) into the battery compartment, making sure that the + and ends match the diagram printed inside the compartment. 3. Close the battery compartment door, making sure the door locks into place, and gently return the unit to its upright position.

Maintenance

Battery Compartment 1. Place the unit on a level surface away from direct sunlight or sources of excessive heat. 2. Protect your furniture when placing the unit on natural wood or wood with a lacquered finish. A cloth or other protective material should be placed between the unit and the furniture. 3. Clean the casing with a soft cloth moistened only with mild soap and water. Stronger cleaning agents, such as thinner or similar agents, are not recommended, as they may damage the surface of the case. 4. If the unit is not to be used for a prolonged period, such as a month or longer, remove the batteries to prevent possible corrosion. Should the battery compartment become corroded or dirty, clean the compartment thoroughly and replace the batteries.

Controls and Indicators

TOP VIEW
3 Off/Reset Button 4 Enter Button 1 Reverse Button 5 Snooze/Dimmer Bar 6 Forward Button

BACK VIEW

8 Time Zone Button 9 Date Set / 7-5-2 Button J Time Set Button

L Mode/DST Button

K Sleep Volume Button

2 Radio Alarm 1 Button

N Power/ Sleep Button 7 Nature Sound/ Buzzer Alarm Button M Memory Set 1-6 Buttons O Volume Thumbwheel

P AUX Jack

SIDE VIEW

FRONT VIEW

LCD Display with Indicators
7-5-2 Alarm Settings Sound Alarm Indicator MP3 Line-in Indicator Daylight-Saving Time Indicator

Radio Alarm Indicator

Clock Sleep Timer
PM Indicator Radio Band Indicator Battery Low Indicator Sleep Volume Indicator Radio Frequency / Calendar Display
Auto-Set and Manual Time and Date Settings
Auto-Set Time and Date Settings
and will already be set when you first plug the model in. Auto-Set will automatically adjust the time and date settings for daylight-saving time and leap years. Auto-Set is programmed for Eastern Standard Time; if you do not live in this time zone, you can easily switch the setting to one of six other time zones. 1. To change your time zone setting, press and hold the 8 Time Zone Button. The current Auto-Set Time Zone in the lower-right-hand corner of the display will flash for approximately ten seconds, after which the display will revert to the standard clock display. 2. While the Auto-Set Time Zone is flashing, press the 1 Reverse and 6 Forward Buttons to select your time zone. The display will show each zones current time setting. There are seven zones to choose from:
This model is equipped with the Auto-Set feature, meaning that the time and date have been programmed at the factory

Auto-Set Time Zones

Z-01 Z-02 Z-03 Z-04 Z-05 Z-06 Z-07
Atlantic Standard Time Eastern Standard Time Central Standard Time Mountain Standard Time Pacific Standard Time Alaskan Standard Time Hawaiian Standard Time
3. Find your time zone, then press the 4 Enter Button or wait about ten seconds for the clock to beep twice and the setting to lock into place.
Manual Time and Date Settings
1. To change your time setting, press and hold the J Time Set Button so that the clock display begins flashing. 2. While the display flashes, press the 1 Reverse and 6 Forward Buttons to set the time. Hold a button for a few seconds to set the time rapidly. Be sure to set the correct AM/PM time, shown by the PM Indicator. 3. After setting the time, press the 4 Enter Button or wait about ten seconds for the clock to beep twice and the setting to lock into place. 4. To change the calendar, press and hold the 9 Date/7-5-2 Button until the display shows the flashing year. 5. Press the 1 Reverse and 6 Forward Buttons to set the current year. When you have selected the year, press the 4 Enter Button, then use the 1 Reverse and 6 Forward Buttons to set the month/day. 6. After you have set the date, press the 4 Enter Button or wait for the display to beep twice and lock into place.

Operating the Dual Alarm System
This clock radio features a dual alarm system, with two alarms that can be operated independently. The alarms can be set to wake two people at different times, or to have a main alarm and a backup. One alarm features your choice of radio stations as an alarm wake sound, while the second features a nature sound or buzzer as an alarm wake sound. You can set the radio alarm, the nature sound/buzzer alarm, or both alarms. Setting the Alarm 1 for AM/FM Radio 1. Press and hold the 2 Radio Alarm 1 Button. The display will flash and the Radio Alarm Indicator will appear. If you do not begin setting the time within ten seconds of pressing the button, the display will stop flashing and you will need to press the 2 Radio Alarm 1 Button again. 2. While the display flashes, press the 1 Reverse and 6 Forward Buttons to set the wake time. Hold a button for a few seconds to set the time rapidly. Be sure to set the correct AM/PM time, as shown by the PM Indicator. 3. After setting the radio alarm time, while the display is still flashing you will need to select the station. First, press the L Mode/DST Button to select a radio frequency. Next, select a station using the M Memory Set 1-6 Buttons. For more information on programming radio stations into memory, see the Programming Radio Station Settings section of this manual. Rotate the O Volume Thumbwheel to set the wake sound volume. 4. After setting the radio alarm wake time and sound, you will need to select the 7-5-2 setting. The 7-5-2 setting lets you set the alarm for a full week, weekdays only, or the weekend. Before setting the alarm, be sure that the correct date is set, as shown in the Auto-Set and Manual Time and Date Settings section of the manual. While the display is still flashing, press the 9 Date/7-5-2 Button until the desired setting is shown. 5. After you have set the radio alarm wake time, sound, and 7-5-2 setting, press the 4 Enter Button. The Radio Alarm Indicator will appear on the display, showing that the radio alarm has been set. Setting Alarm 2 for Nature Sounds/Buzzer 1. Press and hold the 7 Nature Sounds/Buzzer Alarm 2 Button until the Alarm 2 settings and Sounds Alarm Indicator appear on the display. 2. Press the 1 Reverse or 6 Forward Button to set the Alarm 2 time. 3. Use the L Mode/DST Button to select a nature sound or the buzzer to wake to. There is a choice of five sounds: Sound #1: Ocean Surf Sound #2: Birds Sound #3: Brook Sound #4: Wind Chimes buz: Buzzer 4. See Note #4 in the Setting Alarm 1 section for instructions on setting the 7-5-2 alarm setting for Alarm 2. 5. After you have programmed the Alarm 2 settings, press the 4 Enter Button or wait ten seconds to return to the clock display. The Sounds Alarm Indicator will appear on the display, showing that the alarm is set.

Operating the Dual Alarm System (Continued)

Activating the Alarms

1. To activate the radio alarm, make sure that the Radio Alarm Indicator appears on the display. If it does not, press the 2 Radio Alarm 1 Button once so that it does. As long as the indicator appears, the alarm will sound at the set time and days. 2. To activate the nature sounds/buzzer alarm, make sure that the Sounds Alarm Indicator appears on the display. If it does not, press the 7 Nature Sounds/Buzzer Alarm 2 Button once so that it does. 3. When the alarm sounds, press the 3 Off/Reset Button to turn off the alarm while still maintaining the programmed 7-5-2 alarm settings. To turn off an alarm and cancel its 7-5-2 settings, press its Alarm Button so that its Alarm Indicator no longer appears on the display. 4. To activate the snooze feature, press the 5 Snooze/Dimmer Bar when the alarm sounds. The alarm will shut off for approximately ten minutes before sounding again. The feature can be repeated several times during the one-hour snooze cycle. 5. If it is not turned off, the alarm will sound for an hour before stopping. As long as an Alarm Indicator appears on the display, the alarm will sound at the set time, according to the 7-5-2 settings.
Daylight-Saving Time (DST) and Leap Year Adjustments
If you live in an area that does not observe Daylight-Saving Time, it will be necessary for you to manually set the DaylightSaving Time (DST) function. Press the N Power/Sleep Button to turn the unit OFF. Press and hold the L Mode/DST Button for 5 seconds to turn DST on. The LCD display will indicate DST. Press and hold the L Mode/DST Button for 5 seconds again to cancel the DST function and restore to standard time.
Adjusting the Display Backlight
This alarm clock radio features an adjustable display backlight, with dim, medium, and bright settings. To select a backlight
setting, press the 5 Snooze/Dimmer Bar until the desired brightness is reached. Please note that the backlight will not work while the clock is operating on battery power.
Listening and Sleeping to the Radio

Operating the Radio

1. Press the N Power/Sleep Button once to turn on the radio. Note: If the N Power/Sleep Button is pressed more than once, the unit will enter the sleep mode, with the radio operating on a timer. See Sleeping to the Radio Using the Timer for more information about this feature. 2. Press the L Mode/DST Button to select the AM band or one of the two FM bands. The Radio Band Indicator will show which frequency is in use. 3. Press the 1 Reverse and 6 Forward Buttons to tune into a radio station. To scan the stations, hold a button for about three seconds. The radio will rapidly advance to the next strong signal. 4. You may also use the M Memory Set Buttons to select a preset radio station. See the Programming Radio Station Memories section for instructions on programming radio station settings. 5. Rotate the O Volume Thumbwheel to adjust the volume level. 6. Press the 3 Off/Reset Button to turn the power off.

Programming Radio Station Settings
This Alarm Clock Radio features a total of 18 programmable radio settings: 12 FM stations and six AM stations. These allow you to preset your favorite stations and access them quickly. 1. Press the N Power/Sleep Button once to turn on the radio. 2. Press the L Mode/DST Button to select a radio band. The AM/FM Radio Indicator will show which band is in use. 3. Press the 1 Reverse and 6 Forward Buttons to find a station to program into the memory. 4. When you have reached the station you wish to program, press and hold one of the six M Memory Set Buttons until you hear a beep. The radio station has now been programmed into that preset slot, and you can reach the station by pressing its M Memory Set Button while the radio is turned on. 5. Follow the above instructions to continue programming radio station settings into the memory. You can save a total of 18 stations using the three bands. 6. To edit a setting, enter a different radio station as an existing M Memory Set Button. This overrides the original setting.
Antenna Information and Adjustment
FM Extend the FM wire antenna to its full length and vary the direction to its strongest signal. AM The AM bar antenna is located inside the cabinet. Rotate the unit until you find the strongest AM signal.
Last Station Memory The tuner always remembers the last station selected before the radio was switched off, and automatically selects the station again when the radio is turned on.
Sleeping to the Radio Using the Timer
Note: For more information about playing the radio, see the Listening to the Radio section of this manual. 1. Press the N Power/Sleep Button twice to enter the sleep mode. 2. Continue pressing the N Power/Sleep Button to select a 90-, 60-, 30-, or 15-minute sleep time. When the display shows the desired sleep time, stop pressing the button. The sleep timer setting remains active for approximately ten seconds before returning to the standard clock display. The Sleep Indicator will appear, showing that the radio timer has been activated. 3. Select a radio station using the L Mode/DST Button and the M Memory Set Buttons. 4. Press the K Sleep Volume Button to adjust the sleep volume to a comfortable level without affecting the alarm volume. The Sleep Volume Indicator will show the current sleep volume level. Turning the O Volume Thumbwheel will also adjust the sleep volume. 5. The radio will play for the programmed sleep time and then shut off. To check how much sleep time is remaining, press the N Power/Sleep Button once. 6. To turn off the radio before the sleep time has elapsed, press the 3 Off/Reset Button.
Sleeping to Nature Sounds with Timer

1. Press the N Power/Sleep Button twice to enter the sleep mode. This sets the sleep timer to the 90-minute setting. The sleep timer setting remains active for approximately ten seconds before returning to the standard display. The Sleep Indicator will be visible in the LCD display. 2. Continue pressing the N Power/Sleep Button to select a 90-, 60-, 30-, or 15-minute sleep timer. 3. Press the L Mode/DST Button then 1 Reverse or 6 Forward Button to choose from the four nature sounds. 4. Press the K Sleep Volume Button to find a comfortable sleep volume level. The Sleep Volume Indicator on the display shows the sleep volume level. Adjusting the sleep volume will not affect the alarm volume. 5. Press the 3 Off/Reset Button to turn off the nature sounds before the sleep time has elapsed. Note: To see the number of minutes remaining on the sleep timer, press the N Power/Sleep Button once. The display will show the Sleep Time for approximately ten seconds before returning to the normal mode.
Listening and Sleeping to the AUX-IN Device
1. Connect your MP3, Discman or other device into the P AUX Jack located on the right side of the unit with mini plug cord. 2. Press the N Power/Sleep Button once to turn the unit ON and press the L Mode/DST Button to AUX 3. Turn on the external device and adjust the device output level or the Volume Thumbwheel to adjust the volume level. 4. Press the 3 Off/Reset Button to turn the unit off. CAUTION: When no longer listening to music from the AUX-IN Device, be sure to press the 3 Off/Reset Button OFF.
Limited 90-Day Warranty Information
Timex Audio Products, a division of SDI Technologies Inc. (hereafter referred to as SDI Technologies), warrants this product to be free from defects in workmanship and materials, under normal use and conditions, for a period of 90 days from the date of original purchase. Should this product fail to function in a satisfactory manner, it is best to first return it to the store where it was originally purchased. Should this fail to resolve the matter and service still be required by reason of any defect or malfunction during the warranty period, SDI Technologies will repair or, at its discretion, replace this product without charge (except for a $5.00 charge for handling, packing, return UPS/postage, and insurance). This decision is subject to verification of the defect or malfunction upon delivery of this product to the Factory Service Center listed below. The product must include proof of purchase, including date of purchase. The fee for service after the warranty period or without proof of purchase is $10.00. Before returning this product for service, please first replace the batteries (if applicable) with fresh ones, as exhausted or defective batteries are the most common cause of problems encountered. If service is still required: 1. Remove the batteries (if applicable) and pack the unit in a well padded, heavy corrugated box. 2. Enclose a photocopy of your sales receipt, credit card statement, or other proof of the date of purchase, if within the warranty period. 3. Enclose a check or money order payable to the order of SDI Technologies, for the sum of $5.00 ($10.00 after warranty period). 4. Send the unit prepaid and insured, to the Factory Service Center listed below. SDI Technologies Inc. Timex Audio Products Division 1330 Goodyear Dr. El Paso, TX 79936-6420 NOTE: This warranty is valid only if the product is used for the purpose for which it was designed. It does not cover (i) products which have been damaged by negligence, misuse or accident, or which have been modified or repaired by unauthorized persons; (ii) cracked or broken cabinets, or units damaged by excessive heat; (iii) damage to CDs or tape cassettes (if applicable); (iv) the cost of shipping this product to the Factory Service Center and its return to the owner. This warranty is valid only in the United States of America and does not extend to owners of the product subsequent to the original purchaser. Any applicable implied warranties are also limited to 90 days, and SDI Technologies will not be liable for consequential damages. (Some states do not allow limitations on implied warranties or exclusion of consequential damages, so these restrictions may not apply to you.) This warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may also have other rights which vary from state to state. For questions or comments regarding this or other products, please call our toll-free number 1-800-888-4491. TIMEX is a registered trademark of Timex Corporation in the U.S. and other countries.

in administrative law, that an individual cannot challenge an act that does not violate his or her subjective rights.31 This is inferred a sensu contrario by the Court's case-law, where the applicant was still considered directly concerned based on the reasoning that the MS had declared its clear intention to implement the measure as soon as it was adopted by the Community legislature, even though the MS theoretically had discretion to implement. The act itself was capable of having an effect on the individual's subjective rights, and was therefore considered to have direct effect. This was the basis of the ruling in the Bock case.32 Bock was an importer of Chinese mushrooms into Germany. It applied to the German authorities for an import permit, and the latter asked the Commission for authorization to refuse the application. Simultaneously they informed Bock that his request would be rejected as soon as the Commission provided the necessary authorization.33 The declaration left no doubt that the MS intended to act in conformity with the measure, and that thereby the measure had de facto a material effect on the individual's subjective rights.34 The Commission then authorized the German government to deny permission to import Chinese mushrooms and Bock brought proceedings against the decision pursuant to Article 230 EC (ex. Art. 173). The Court held that Bock was directly concerned as the actions of the German government left no reason to believe that any discretion would be exercised after the relevant authorization from the Commission was received.35 Similar reasoning is found in the ASPEC case, where the court declared that an
cont. May 1978 in Case 92/78, Simmenthal SpA v. Commission of the European Communities, [1979] ECR 777, Judgment of Case T-298/94, Roquette Freres SA v. Council of the European Union, [1996] ECR II1531. 31 Moreover, it is very important to consider the nature of the act, if the measure is a preparatory act it cannot be regarded as being a decision against which an action will lie, as it does not have an effect on the individuals subjective rights; Judgment of 11 November 1981 in Case 60/81, International Business Machines Corporation v. Commission of the European Communities, [1981] ECR 2639; Judgment of 10 July 1990 in Case T-64/89, Automec Srl v. Commission of the European Communities, [1990] ECR II367. 32 Judgment of 23 November 1971 in Case 62/70, Werner A. Bock v. Commission of the European Communities (Bock), [1971] ECR 897, paras. 68; by contrast, see Judgment of 13 December 2000 in Case T-69/99, DSTV v. Commission, [2000] ECR II4039. 33 In Case 62/70, Bock, [1971] ECR 897 paras. 68. 34 Ibid; Judgment of 17 January 1985 in Case 11/82, A.E. Piraiki-Petraiki v. Commission of the European Communities, [1985] ECR 207, paras. 810, and Judgment of 31 March 1998 in Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95, French Republic and Societe commerciale des potasses et de l'azote (SCPA) and Entreprise miniere et chimique (EMC) v. Commission of the European Communities (France and others v. Commission), [1998] ECR I1375, para. 51; see also Judgment of 5 May 1998 in Case C-404/96 P, Glencore Grain v. Commission of the European Communities, [1998] ECR I2435, para. 42. 35 The Court also found that Bock was individually concerned, as it was differentiated from all other applicants by the fact that it had applied for the license before the measure was enacted.

campaign to expand the markets for milk and milk products, and in order to observe the response of consumers to a reduction in prices for butter.62 The federal office for the organization of agricultural markets63 was to make available free of charge 900 tons of butter from public stocks to certain commercial undertakings which it was to select and which were to pledge themselves by contract to package the butter covered by the operation and to sell it through retailers. The applicants were responsible for the majority of the sales of margarine in the area and naturally considered themselves concerned as the Community literally decided to start dumping an alternative product on the market for a period of two months. In business terms, it is understandable that whenever a product that is highly interchangeable with another product is dumped on the market with a substantially lower price, the sales of the alternative product (margarine) will decrease rapidly and financial loss is inevitable due to lower sales. The applicants brought actions at the local administrative Court asking for interim relief, which was granted. However, the appellate Court found that the applications fell under the jurisdiction of the civil Courts as the implementing measures were all governed by private law, and quashed the orders.64 Thereafter, the applicants brought an action for annulment under Article 173 (2) EEC (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC). Based on the Plaumann ruling, the Court ignored the fact that the applicants would suffer economic hardship as an inevitable consequence of the measure and upheld the Commission's argument that the measures were not of individual concern to the applicants as `other undertakings supply, or may decide to supply, margarine on the West Berlin market'.65 There is some doubt as to the reasonableness of this argumentation since it is unlikely any undertaking will enter the market when the Community is in fact dumping an alternative product with prices a private competitor is unable to beat. Therefore, on the basis of how reasonable it is for a new undertaking to enter the business, it would be correct to consider the group closed and the applicants
OJ 1977 L 131/6; Nine hundred tons of butter from public stocks were to be packaged in packets of 250 grams, each stamped with the words `free EEC butter'. Those packets were subsequently to be marketed in a package also containing one packet of open-market butter of the same weight, and the price of the packets thus sold together was not to exceed the price chargeable for 250 grams of open-market butter during the marketing period. The competent intervention agency for milk and milk products Bundesanstalt Fur Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. The Court referred several questions for a preliminary ruling: Judgment of 21 May 1987 in Cases 133136/85, Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke and others v. Bundesanstalt fur landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung, [1987] ECR 2289. Whenever there is a theoretical possibility of another private entity entering the business, locus standi has been denied. See in that respect Case 25/62, Plaumann [1963] ECR 95; Judgment of 14 July 1983 in Case 231/82, Spijker Kwasten BV v. Commission of the European Communities (Spijker), [1983] ECR 2559; Case C-198/91, Cook [1993] ECR I 2487; Case C-225/91, Matra [1993] ECR I3203; Case T-2/93, Air France [1994] ECR II 323; and Case T-465/93, `Murgia Messapica' [1994] ECR II361.

considering that the community often passes regulations, which are only applicable for a short period of time (e.g., 3 months) and by their temporary nature only applicable to a limited group of subjects. Based on the fact that the wording of a measure is abstract in nature, those subjects will not be accorded standing in a direct action even if in fact the group affected is limited. Furthermore, by setting down the above rule the Court somewhat contradicts its statement in paragraph 7 of the judgment, namely, that the rationale for allowing any challenge to provisions which were in the form of regulations was to prevent the Community institutions from immunizing measures from attack merely by the form in which they were expressed.84 In paragraph 7, the Court theoretically `opened the door' for reasoning that the choice of form chosen for the measure challenged, despite being generic in form, is in fact a means for the Community legislature to protect it from proceedings from annulment while in fact seeking to adopt a decision.85 By making the rule of no use to them on the basis of the test of legal nature, the Court at the same time `closed the door' for Calpak. In most cases the court differentiates between true regulations and decisions of importance to individuals by assessing the nature of the contested decision and in particular the legal effects which it is intended to produce or actually produces.86 If the act is applicable to an abstract group of subjects, it is to be considered a regulation by nature. If however the measure identifies certain individuals, for example, it may be susceptible to judicial review by private actions under Article 230 EC (ex. Art. 173). According to settled case-law, any measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his or her legal position, is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action under Article 230 of the Treaty for a declaration that it is void.87 The nature of a measure can at times become an unchallengeable barrier to a direct action, and at other times it is completely ignored by the Court and the ruling is passed on the basis of the test of direct and individual concern. For example in cases such as CAM,88 the Court declared the action admissible without considering at all the nature of the measure or its direct effect, thereby considerably changing the

2. The `Closed Category' Cases
The practice of the Court indicates that the `key' to establishing individual concern
Case C-358/89, Extramet, [1991] ECR I2501 para. 53. Judgment of 3 May 2002 in Case T-177/01, Jego-Quere & Cie SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Jego-Quere), [2002] ECR II0000. Commission Regulation 1162/2001/EC, OJ 2001 L 159/4. The CFI refers to Case C-358/89, Extramet, [1991] ECR I2501 at paras 13 and 14, the judgment of 18 May 1994 in Case C-309/89, Codornu SA v. Council of the European Union (Codornu), [1994] ECR I1853 at para. 19 and judgment of 22 November 2001 in C-451/ 98, Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Council of the European Union, [2001] ECR I8949 at para. 46; Judgment of 14 August 1998 in Case T-43/98, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v. Council of the European Union, [2001] ECR II0000 para. 47. F. Emmert, `Die Gefahr des ``denial of justice'' durch Selbstbeschrankung des Gerichtshofs' in Der Europaische Gerichtshof in Luxemburg als Garant der Rechtsgemeinschaft, (Proefschrift Universiteit Maastricht 1998) pp. 175237 at p. 202.
has been the closed category test. In cases where the measure affects entities that form a group distinguished from all others in that it can no longer be extended to include any further members, the Court has considered the group of entities to be individually concerned, and has granted locus standi.94 The landmark decision for such interpretation is Toepfer,95 where the Federal Republic of Germany had implemented certain protective measures on the importation of maize, millet and sorghum. The applicants had applied for import licences before the Commission adopted a decision allowing Germany to retain in force the above-mentioned measures. The Court found that: `[t]he number and identity of importers had become fixed and ascertainable before 4 October, when the contested decision was made.' Based on this reasoning, the Court dismissed the objection of inadmissibility and held that the applicants were by the same fact distinguished individually from all other persons, just as in the case of the person addressed. The Court used the same reasoning in International Fruit,96 which dealt with the importation of apples from third countries into the Community. The procedure foresaw that the importers applied for import licences with their own local authorities, which at the end of each week communicated the quantities applied for to the Commission.97 The Commission then adopted a Regulation on the issue of the licences, based inter alia on these submissions. The Court held that the Regulation was de facto a bundle of decisions98 and that at the time the Regulation was adopted, the number of applications, which could be affected, was fixed as no new applications could be added.99 On these grounds, the applicant was considered to be individually concerned.100 In the CAM101 case the Commission passed a regulation,102 which denied CAM (among other exporters that applied for an export licence before 7 October 1974) an increase in refunds on the exports of cereals and rice. In this case, the Court found that the number of cereal exporters affected by the measure was fixed,103 and

Case 100/74, CAM SA [1975] ECR 1393 at paras 1318, by the fact that the application deadline had passed and no further entities could enter the group, and that the amount of transactions affected was also known. 104 Judgment of 16 April 1970 in Case 64/69, La compagnie francaise commerciale et financiere SA, v. Commission of the European Communities (La Compagnie Francaise), [1970] ECR 221. 105 Case 64/69, La Compagnie Francaise [1970] ECR 221at para. 12. 106 Judgment of 33 March 1977 in Case 88/76, Societe pour l'exportation des sucres SA v. Commission of the European Communities, [1977] ECR 409; see also Judgment of 1 February 1984 in Case 1/84, Ilford SpA v. Commission of the European Communities [1984] ECR 423. 107 Judgment of 15 December 1994 in Case T-489/93, Unifruit Hellas EPE v. Commission of the European Communities [1994] ECR II1201, para. 25 (upheld by ECJ in its Order of 5 February 1997 in Case C-51/95 P, Unifruit Hellas EPE v. Commission of the European Communities, [1997] ECR I0727), and Case T-482/93, Weber [1996] ECR II609 at paras 6365.
applicant.108 The applicant was apparently in a position sufficiently different from all other applicants such that it could be considered individually concerned by the measure since the apples were already in transit to the Community and were purchased under the surveillance measures introduced by Regulation No 384/93. The Court however then referred to its preceding case-law stating that the possibility of identifying the subjects was not sufficient to consider the regulation a decision109 and further that it must affect the subjects' legal position through factual circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and distinguish them individually in the same way as a person to whom it is addressed.110 Surprisingly, the Court did not consider the fact that the applicant belonged to a closed class was sufficient to differentiate it from all other members in the trade. It seems that the applicant's rights under the principle of legal certainty may have been infringed, as the measure was applied to his situation only after it had purchased the goods. At least in theory, the applicant was entitled to rely on the norms as they were at the time of the act of purchasing the apples, as the purchase was done on the presumption that it would be able to sell them in the Community market under the conditions set. The Court however decided otherwise.111 In Jego-Quere the Court made it clear that the fact that the applicant was one of the major undertakings affected by the challenged regulation in a geographic area would not sufficiently individualize the applicant in order to make it individually concerned.112 In general the Court has by now somewhat clarified its understanding of persons

more likely to occur if the procedures foresee some sort of participatory rights.128 Therefore, as regards the standing of applicants, the key legislation is EEC Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, as it lays down these participatory rights of interested parties.129 If the applicants have made use of these rights, then practice indicates that any measures taken thereafter are considered to be of direct and individual concern to them.130 Therefore if one has participated in the Commission investigation under the Merger Control Regulation,131 then the Commission's finding of whether the merger is or is not compatible with the Common market is considered as being of direct and individual concern to it. One of the most interesting cases in the field of competition law is the Metro case.132 Metro complained to the Commission that SABA was engaged in anticompetitive trade practices, in that it had refused to supply Metro with its electronic products.133 The Commission decided that there was no violation of Article 81 EC (ex. 85). As competition decisions are addressed to the subjects, and not to the ones that initiate the proceedings, the Court was faced with a dispute on whether or not Metro was individually concerned by the resolution. The Court found that the Commission's proceedings were initiated on the basis of Metro's complaint and that after such initiation, in order to protect the legitimate interests of the participant, it was necessary to grant it judicial review if its request was not complied with. These factors were sufficient for Metro to be considered individually concerned and it was granted locus standi.134 The application of the above principle has been uniform and the granting of standing in such cases provides adequate access to those undertakings, which were cautious enough to participate when possible. The reasoning of the Court in granting standing is expressed by AG Fennelly in Kruidvat BVBA v. Commission135 as follows:

128 129

See Ehlers, in Verwaltungs-Archiv, supra note at 153. Series-I I, OJ 1962 L 13/204 (English Special Edition). 130 Case 191/82, FEDIOL, [1983] ECR 2913. 131 Council Regulation 4064/89 of 21 December 1989, OJ 1989 L 395/1, also called `Merger Control Regulation'. 132 Judgment of 25 October 1977 in Case 26/76, Metro SB-Gromarkte GmbH & Co. KG v. Commission of the European Communities (Metro), [1977] ECR 1875. 133 Under Regulation 17, Art. 3 sets the procedural ground for a private party to initiate proceedings: SABA Claimed that Metro did not meet its requirements to Dealers concerning servicing the goods. 1. Where the Commission, upon application or upon its own initiative, finds that there is infringement of Art. 85 or Art. 86 of the Treaty, it may by decision require the undertakings or associations of undertakings concerned to bring such infringement to an end. 2. Those entitled to make application are: (a) Member States; (b) natural or legal persons who claim a legitimate interest [emphasis added]. 134 The Court also found that as Metro was suffering under the SABA's restrictive trade practices, it was also thereby individually concerned. 135 The opinion of AG Fenelly in Judgment of 17 November 1998 in Case C-70/97 P, Kruidvat BVBA v. Commission of the European Communities [1998] ECR I7183 at para. 34.

The Court considered the application admissible for two closely related, but none the less distinct, reasons; namely, that where natural or legal persons were entitled to make a complaint pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17, it was both `in the interests of a satisfactory administration of justice and of the proper application of Articles 85 and 86' of the Treaty that such persons `be able, if their request is not complied with either wholly or in part, to institute proceedings to protect their legitimate interests'.136 The Community has an interest in receiving the most accurate and precise information in the administrative proceedings leading to any decision by an institution, and that Community interest is in close harmony with the protection of the interests of persons capable of furnishing that information. A person who plays a part in the decision-making process is so distinguished from other market participants as to have an individual concern in the decision. When comparing the cases on Competition law to the case-law discussed before this section, one can see that the rules have been substantially relaxed. The preceding caselaw made it quite clear that the fact that it was possible to identify the subjects whom the measure affected was insufficient, and the extent of the effect of the measure on one's position was considered insignificant, as long as it could be declared a `true regulation' or as long as the applicant was not differentiated from all others.137 Furthermore, the requirement of being a member of a closed group would have excluded Metro simply on the basis of the wording from the Piraiki-Petraiki decision138 `that is clearly a commercial activity which can be carried on at any time by any undertaking whatever'. On the basis of these previous tests, any company could have entered the same business that Metro was dealing in and would have been just as much `concerned'. Therefore, what the Court decided was that the fact that Metro, unlike any other undertaking, had taken steps which it was authorized to take under Regulation 17 differentiated Metro from all other undertakings. Eventually one can see that in a strange way the Court held on to its ruling in Plaumann and simply modified the case-law in recognizing the special situation of those parties which were granted certain procedural guarantees under the respective norms of the acquis.

II. Anti-Dumping Cases

The situation in Dumping Cases is quite similar to the cases discussed above. The main line of cases important under the subject matter of this thesis are related to situations where the applicants' complaint was the basis for initiating proceedings or where the data provided by the applicants was used for the calculation of the anti-dumping duty

136 137

Case 26/76, Metro [1977] ECR 1875 at para. 19. Case 123/77, UNICME, [1978] ECR 845. 138 Case 11/82, Piraiki-Petraiki, [1985] ECR 207 para. 14. 139 Joined Cases 239/82 and 275/82, Allied Corporation, [1984] ECR 1005 at para. 15; Art. 6, Council Regulation 384/96 on Protection Against Dumped Imports, OJ 1996 L 56/1, as
and/or the ex-factory price of the goods of the company allegedly dumping them on the Community market.139 The situation differs from the cases described above since imposing anti-dumping duties is done in the form of a regulation.140 Therefore in Alusuisse141 and Allied Corporation142 the Court recognized the special situation of AD Regulations and stated that even though they were legislative in nature they could still be challenged by interested parties. Furthermore in the Allied case the Court made it quite clear that producers or exporters, who were either identified in the measures or were concerned by the preliminary investigations, should be granted locus standi.143 Therewith the Court has taken an approach where it recognizes the measures in question as generic norms144 but bases its findings on the discussion of whether an applicant is or is not individually concerned by them, again recognizing the idea that even truly generic measures may be of direct and individual concern to some members of the general public affected. At the same time it has been made quite clear that in fact it is not possible for the Commission to exclude its measures from private actions, as anyone involved in the procedure or identified by the measure is likely to be able to bring a claim. In Timex145 the only British watch producer had initiated the proceedings through the British trade association and found that the resulting ADDs imposed on mechanical watches from the Soviet Union were insufficient as they did not cover the importation of watch movements of such watches and did not therefore correspond to the actual rate of dumping involved. In finding that the applicant had locus standi the Court stated that the AD Regulations are legislative in nature and scope inasmuch as they apply to traders in general. However as the initial act was based on the applicant's circumstances, it was to be considered a decision, which was of direct and individual concern to the applicant.146 The Court found that the passing of the regulation was based on Timex's complaint. Timex had participated in the proceedings and interestingly had also mentioned that it was the main producer affected by the dumping. Once more the Court recognized that it was no longer necessary to prove that the regulation was in fact a decision and thereby reiterated that even true regulations can be of direct and individual concern.147 To conclude the discussion

cont. amended by Council Regulation 2331/96 of 2 December 1996, OJ 1996 L 317/1 and by Council Regulation 905/98 of 27 April 1998, OJ 1998 L 128/18. 140 `A regulation shall have general application.' 141 Case 307/81, Alusuisse, [1982] ECR 3463 at para. 9. 142 Joined Cases 239/82 and 275/82, Allied Corporation, [1984] ECR 1005. 143 Joined Cases 239/82 and 275/82, Allied Corporation, [1984] ECR 1005 at para. 12. 144 Not decisions substance and form argumentation is here not applicable. 145 Case 264/82, Timex, [1985] ECR 849. 146 Case 264/82, Timex [1985] ECR 849 at paras. 12 and 16. 147 See, for example, Case 25/62, Plaumann, [1963] ECR 95 at para. 107, and Case C-309/89, Codornu, [1994] ECR I1853 at paras. 1920, and the order in Case C-10/95 P, Asocarne, [1995] ECR I4149 at para. 43.
about the form of the measure in AD cases this paper claims that the Court has finally abandoned its position from Moksel148 that a provision cannot have the character of individual measure and of that of a general application at the same time.

1. Importer and Exporter

According locus standi to exporters and importers is again questionable as ADD's are imposed by regulations and therefore imposed on all imports into the Community. However here it is more difficult to show that one is individually concerned by the measure since the investigation and the adoption of the measure do not guarantee any involvement in the proceedings for the importers and exporters. Once the measure is passed it affects all traders in general and it is no longer possible for one to express its concern with the subject matter. As an example, in Alusuisse149 the applicant was an independent importer of a product (orthoxylol) and the Commission imposed an ADD on the product imported from the US and Puerto Rico. Here the question of legal nature became a crucial factor for the applicant. The Commission heavily relied upon the notion that a regulation is of general application and could not be of individual concern to the applicant. The Court referred to Article 189 EEC (now Article 249 EC), upheld the argument and stated that the claim of the applicant that the subjects of the measure were identifiable was irrelevant. The application was dismissed on the basis that AD regulations are directed at all imports and that no importers are identified in the regulations. By reason of the above emphasis must be placed on the importance that importers and exporters take advantage of their procedural options since all interested parties have the right to present their views on whether dumping exists. The Commission also sends out questionnaires to those importers and exporters that are known to the Commission.150 It is, therefore, important to observe the developments in one's field of business in order to submit one's observations in time. If possible, one should cooperate with the Commission investigation and submit documentation to the Commission because the regulation by which the ADD is imposed lists the entities that participated in the proceedings and whose data was used in the calculation. An importer, whose name appears on the list, will be given standing.

152 153

Case 169/84, COFAZ, [1986] ECR 391. Case T-149/95, Ducros, [1997] ECR II2031 at para. 32. In accordance with the principle of affecting an individual's subjective rights, it is common that the applicant is directly concerned by the contested decision inasmuch as that measure declares compatible with the common market aid that has already been granted. 154 `. We now have to carry out a fundamental review of the way the institution works. The challenge facing us is to re-engineer, adapt and improve the organisation to make it more efficient and more effective. To fight fraud at every level. To put it at the service of the European public.' Romano Prodi, President; the grand total of human resources employed in the Commission is put at 31,013 person/years (all the figures quoted relate to the reference period for the exercise, which, by convention, is May 1998). This figure,
and the chances of not having a remedy are quite limited in comparison with the rest of the cases analyzed in this paper.

F. Problem Cases

The preceding may leave one with the impression that the Court has laid down clear rules for according locus standi, has limited the access of those cases that do not meet the test laid down in Article 230 EC (ex. Art. 173) and has in exceptional cases, where it is absolutely necessary, granted standing.155 In the following discussion, focus will be on the issue of whether the Court has at times unreasonably restricted access in certain cases and has perhaps prevented applicants from access to effective justice where they were affected by the measure.
Cases Where the Subjects of the Measure Were Identifiable
Since the creation of the Court there have been several cases where the challenged regulation affected very small categories of people; the categories were so small in fact that one could have easily ascertained their identities even before the regulation was passed. The problem with the tests currently applied by the Court appears most clearly in the fact that the nature of the regulation as a `true regulation' becomes questionable. This is so because one must consider whether the competent authority, that is, the Commission, is not in fact trying to pass a decision regulating the circumstances of these particular subjects through a generic measure in order to prevent actions for annulment and judicial review of that measure.156 It certainly raises questions as to whether there are only a handful of undertakings engaged in a

191 192

Case T-117/94, Associazione, [1995] ECR II455 at para. 74 (Opinion). See in that direction the opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C-358/89, Extramet, [1991] ECR I 2501 at paras. 69 to 74. 193 See Case C-358/89, Extramet, [1991] ECR I2501 at para. 60 (Opinion). 194 Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies. Art. 174 EC (ex. Art. 130R). 195 Case C-358/89, Extramet, [1991] ECR I2501 at para. 65 (Opinion).
unenforceable in situations as such, since the only parties interested in bringing a claim were denied access and the ones who were entitled to bring one, in other words the recipients of the aid, were not likely to bring proceedings against it. The seriousness of the problem with standing of private applicants in environmental matters is illustrated by the Danielsson case,196 where the inhabitants of Tahiti were faced with the French government, which wanted to carry out a series of nuclear tests from Fall 1995 to Spring 1996 on the atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa, which form part of French Polynesia.197 Even though the case never made it to the main action for annulment, the issues involved in denying interimrelief were very interesting. The applicants applied to the Court for such relief198 in an action to challenge the Commission's decision that Article 34 of the EAEC Treaty199 was not applicable in the circumstances. They argued that the Commission incorrectly concluded that the nuclear tests were not particularly dangerous experiments because it had not given sufficient analysis to the environmental and health risks involved. The Court dismissed the application on the basis that the applicants were not ipso facto individually concerned.200 One must consider whether such reasoning of the Court, even though in harmony with earlier case-law, takes into full consideration the true seriousness involved in nuclear testing. Is it correct to deny access to the courts to those applicants whose health may be in serious danger on the basis that all other residents were in just as serious danger? It seems that it would be reasonable to follow the reasoning of the applicants in that the danger to their health should be sufficient to consider them individually concerned.201 The applicants provided the Court with relevant scientific
Judgment of 22 December 1995 in Case T-219/95 R, Marie-Therese Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa v. Commission of the European Communities (Danielsson and others), [1995] ECR II3051. 197 The capital of which lies on Tahiti. 198 Art. 243 (ex. Art. 186) EC. 199 Art. 34 of The Treaty Establishing The European Atomic Energy Community places an obligation on the MS in case particularly dangerous experiments are to take place to ask the Commission for its permission on the matter. 200 Case C-10/95 P, Asocarne, [1995] ECR I4149 at para. 43; Case 25/62, Plaumann, [1963] ECR 95; Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85, Van der Kooy and others v. Commission, [1988] ECR 219 at para. 14; Joined Cases T-447/93, T-448/93 and T-449/93, AITEC and Others v. Commission, [1995] ECR II1971 at para. 34. 201 Case C-358/89, Extramet, [1991] ECR I2501; Case C-309/89, Codornu, [1994] ECR I1853; and Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93, Antillean Rice Mills and Others v. Commission, [1995] ECR II2305. The applicants argue that they are individually concerned because they are particularly seriously affected by the Commission's decision, in which it failed to take properly into account the critical impact which the nuclear tests could have on their health. 202 `In 1987, according to one study cited, a small amount of radioactive gas was accidentally released as a result of a Soviet nuclear test on the island of Novaya Zemblya, following which air and mild (sic.) were found to be contaminated in areas up to 2,000 km away, further than the distance between Mururoa and either Pitcairn or Tahiti.' Case T-219/95 R, Danielsson and others, [1995] ECR II3051 at para. 36.

C. Harding, `The Private Interest in Challenging Community Action' in (1980) 5 ELRev at 354355. 231 The Community-wide acceptance of rulings of the Court is not an easy goal to achieve. One can see evidence of various international panels, which have failed to give their rulings truly binding effect, due to the fact that they are perceived as a `foreign body, trying to tell us what to do'. The European judiciary has chosen a clever route in that they will give the national courts guidance on the proper application of the law, but the initial ruling comes from the MS court. The rulings are thus perceived as the rulings of the MS court and in a State, which observes the rule of law, the rulings of the Court are followed and respected. 232 The argument of extending the jurisdictions of MS courts.
that the CFI is to an extent bound by the earlier case-law of the Court, which developed as a result of the desire to become the Court of Appeals. However, as has been seen, the Court does not always consider it bound by its own case-law and could therefore have taken a substantial shift towards more flexible standards in the matter.233 Either way, the desire of the Court to be considered a Court of Appeals cannot serve as a justification for the situation at issue, where the applicants are denied the remedy granted to them under the Treaty.
II. The Strict Wording of Article 230 EC (ex. Art. 173)
In addition, there is a question of whether Art 230 EC (ex. Art. 173) was ever intended to provide remedies in cases of regulations or decisions addressed to third parties. Harding claims that the text of the Treaty already provided for the strict limitations, and that taken in combination with Article 189 EEC (now Art. 249 EC) a remedy in such action was probably never intended.234 It can be argued that there was never an intention that the text challenge the true regulations and that the requirement of special interest was intended to be very strict, since according to Article 249 EC (ex. Art. 189) a regulation is of general application. Furthermore, it is claimed that a private challenge of generic norms is not acceptable as such. Harding claims that relying on the text of the Treaty `it would not be a good policy to allow private parties to challenge measures such as regulations and decisions addressed to Member States'. There is certainly some basis to that argument in the sense that the text of Article 230 EC is more restrictive than that of its predecessor Article 33 ECSC. However, the limits of the provisions have already to an extent been exceeded by allowing challenges against the acts of the EP and actions of the Parliament against the Council. Concerning regulations, the argument that such generic norms should not be challengeable per se due to public law traditions, is not quite convincing. For example, in France, private actions against norms of generic nature are considered perfectly acceptable. In addition, one must consider Article 2 (4) TEU (ex. Art. B), which lists as one of the fundamental objectives of the Community maintaining and developing the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. Drawing from this statement, one must conclude that whenever there is harm caused to a Community citizen, there must be a remedy available for him or her to demand rectification for this harm. Therefore, even if the text of the Treaty is strict, the drafters of the Treaty were acting under the notion that whenever there is harm there will be a remedy. It would not have been possible to list all the possible means of harming the interests of citizens and in the light of the