foremost, determine whether the complaint has been brought to its jurisdiction in full
complianr.e with the rules that govern the access to the Court.
45 The refusal by a Member State to implement in the internal order a Community
Protocol in which it is voluntarily bound or under obligation to recognize the right of
a Community citizen, as derived from that Protocol, constitutes a violation of
obligations arising from Community texts.
46 In this regard, Article 9(1) subparagraph (d) provides that the Court has competence
to adjudicate on any dispute relating to "the failure by Member States to honour their
obligations under the Treaty, Conventions and Protocols, regulations or decisions of
ECOWAS".
47 Therefore, there is no doubt that any Member State that fails to implement its
obligations arising from Community texts to which it is bound, can be brought before
the ECOWAS Court of JustiCe.
48 But, contrary to other situations in which individuals are allowed direct access to the
Court, in particular, for actions against the Community, its Institutions or its
employees (Article 10(c)) or against Member States for violations of human rights
(Article 10(d)), the Protocol on the Court does not empower individuals with the
locus standi to sue a Member State for violation of its obligations enshrined in
Community texts. According to Article 10(a), only a Member State or the ECOWAS
Commission has access to the Court to compel a Member State to fulfill an
obligation.
49 Therefore, the Community citizen who has been a victim of an alleged violation of a
right enshrined in the Community Protocol by a Member State is provided with only
two alternatives:
a) To ask his own State to take on the defence of his interest and file an action before the
Community Court of Jr,stice against the defaulting MembcY State, pursuant to Article
1O(a);
9