OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES, AS A CONDITION FOR THE GRANT OF INTERIM MEASURES SUCH AS THOSE REQUESTED, THAT THE APPLICATION MUST STATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA-FACIE CASE FOR THE INTERIM MEASURES APPLIED FOR .
15 AS A PRELIMINARY POINT, BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THAT ITS APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF AN ORDER SUSPENDING THE CONTESTED ACT AND FOR THE GRANT OF THE INTERIM MEASURE APPLIED FOR, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER A QUESTION RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION .
16 THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THE MAIN APPLICATION TO WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES RELATES IS MANIFESTLY INADMISSIBLE AND, CONSEQUENTLY, SUBMITS THAT THIS APPLICATION IS ALSO MANIFESTLY INADMISSIBLE . IN SUPPORT OF ITS VIEW, IT MAINTAINS THAT AS THE DECISION AT ISSUE IS ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBER STATES AN APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE DECISION IS VOID MADE BY A LEGAL PERSON, SUCH AS DISTRIVET, ON THE BASIS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY IS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNLESS IT IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO IT .
17 IN THAT REGARD THE DEFENDANT POINTS OUT THAT THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT "PERSONS OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHOM A DECISION IS ADDRESSED MAY CLAIM TO BE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED ONLY IF THAT DECISION AFFECTS THEM BY REASON OF CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THEM OR BY REASON OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY ARE DIFFERENTIATED FROM ALL OTHER PERSONS AND BY VIRTUE OF THESE FACTORS DISTINGUISHES THEM INDIVIDUALLY JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON ADDRESSED ". THAT REQUIREMENT IS NOT SATISFIED IN THIS CASE ESSENTIALLY ON TWO GROUNDS . THE COUNCIL ARGUES IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT DECISION 87/561 IS, BY ITS NATURE, A MEASURE OF GENERAL APPLICATION EMPOWERING THE MEMBER STATES TO MAINTAIN IN FORCE, AS REGARDS THE MARKETING OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION, NATIONAL PROVISIONS WHICH ARE THEMSELVES OF GENERAL AND ABSTRACT APPLICATION, SO THAT SUCH A MEASURE CANNOT BE OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO A PARTICULAR PERSON DEALING IN THOSE PRODUCTS . SECONDLY, THE COUNCIL SUBMITS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DECISION IS TO ENSURE THAT ANIMALS AND MEAT TO WHICH HORMONES WERE LAWFULLY ADMINISTERED PRIOR TO 1 JANUARY 1988 MAY BE DISPOSED OF BY FACILITATING THEIR MARKETING UP TO 31 DECEMBER 1988 . CONSEQUENTLY, THE DECISION IS NOT IN ANY WAY CONCERNED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUBSTANCES HAVING A HORMONAL ACTION AND IT IS QUITE INCAPABLE OF BEING OF CONCERN TO A MANUFACTURER AND DISTRIBUTOR OF SUCH SUBSTANCES SUCH AS DISTRIVET .
18 THE COUNCIL ALSO MAINTAINS THAT, IN ADDITION, COUNCIL DECISION 87/561 IS NOT OF DIRECT CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT . IN THAT REGARD IT CONTENDS THAT THE DECISION, AS IS CLEAR FROM ARTICLE 1 ( 3 ) THEREOF, MERELY CONFIRMS THE PROHIBITION ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUBSTANCES HAVING A HORMONAL ACTION LAID