being challenged. An individual holder of such right, in the sense required by this provision, is the person whose interest is directly and immediately affected by the act or inaction that is being contested. This means that if the person is not directly or immediately affected by the act he/she seeks for annulment, such person cannot be accepted to submit a case under Article 1o(c) of the Protocol on the Court of Justice, and therefore the complaint should be rejected. 46. In applying these principles to the situation described in the present case, it is easy to see that the Applicant cannot be considered directly and immediately affected or harmed by the act of the President of the Court who decided, even without following a competitive selection process, to reinstate an employee whose resignation had been previously accepted. 47· TI1e Applicant was not in any situation where she was directly affected by the decision of the Head of that institution. Her situation is exactly the same as that of other Community citizens that would be qualified to apply for the position if a competitive recruitment process to fill this vacancy were to be opened. Contrary to the averments by the Plaintiff, the mere fact of being a Community citizen qualified to attend or with expectation to participate in any contest which however was not opened, does not place the person in a legal position to file a complaint for non opening of the selection process. 48. In line with its previous decision, the Court holds that the status of Community citizen does not by itself afford the capacity to challenge the act of an institution that did not cause any direct damage to the person concerned (JUDGEMENT NO: ECW/CCJ/JUD/ol/08, 2004-2009 CCJELR, pag. 167). 13