Development Project cited above and the office sought. In other words, the development project whose promoter he is not an essential element for the post of Secretary General of ECOWAS Parliament. 31. In the current circumstances, an announcement concerning vacancy of a post is accompanied by requirements of a job profile, which naturally excludes certain prospective candidates, in terms of nationality, university degree, academic qualification, work experience, age, etc. Yet, once again, it cannot reasonably be held that the promoter of a project will be the most qualified to occupy the post of Secretary General of ECOWAS Parliament, much less when he had not demonstrated, on his own, any interest in the said post; whereas legally speaking, an interest in a case must be personal, direct and certain. 32. It is imperative to note that in his Application, the Applicant does not demonstrate any of the features of having an interest at stake. His mere status as a Community citizen or promoter of a regional development company is not sufficient to concretely determine his interest in the case. Consequently, the question arises as to whether his action is admissible. As to the Admissibility of the Action 33. In order for an application seeking to contest the legality of an act to be deemed admissible, it is not sufficient for the act in question to affect the applicant in whatsoever manner that it may be; there should exist, as an additional condition, a sufficiently direct relationship of cause and effect. The act made by the Council of Ministers, i.e. the Regulation complained of, must affect the legal status of the Applicant. The principle according to which "any act adversely affecting the legal status of a person may be brought before the law courts" is trite law (see CJEC Reports 17 July 1959, p.275; CJEC Reports 17 March 1967, CBR Cement Works, Cases 8 - 11/66, p.93; ICCEC, 27 February 1992, Vichy v. Commission, Case T.19/91; 1992, II, p. 415). 34. Such direct relationship is however absent from the case brought. Furthermore, the Applicant must be directly and personally concerned by the act complained of. In other words, the Applicant must establish or demonstrate that the contested Regulation concerns him directly and personally. Here, there are two cumulative conditions and once any one of the two is not fulfilled, the Application is inadmissible. 35. In its Judgment of 15 July 1963, in Case Concerning Plauman v. Commission (see CJEC Reports, 1963, p.199), the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC) held that those personally concerned are the persons who "are affected by the act, by reason of a situation of fact which typifies them vis-?-vis any other person, and marks them out individually in exactly the same manner as a recipient is marked out". This statement which was adopted for the first time then, has since been applied several times to various subject-matters (See CJEC Reports - 29 March 1979, ISOC/Counsel Case 118/77; CJEC Reports 1979, p. 1277; CJEC Reports 231, February 1984, Allied Corporation v. Commission, Case 239/82, 1984, p. 10005; ICCEC 25 September 1997, Shangai Bicycle Corporation v. Council, Case T 170/94; CJEC Reports 1997, II, p. 1383). As to the other Pleas-in-law invoked by the Applicant 36. Nowhere in the Application does the Applicant demonstrate his interest in the post. Nor does he show the extent to which the contested Regulation constitutes an act of injustice against his person or an obstruction to the interests of his constituency. 37. At any rate, the Regulation complained of, which was a measure adopted within the context of the administrative re-structuring of the ECOWAS Parliament, was enacted, not in the interest of individuals but that of the Community. From this standpoint, there are grounds to conclude that individuals have no interest at stake and therefore the action of the Applicant is inadmissible for lack of interest. Since the Applicant has no interest at stake, he cannot ask for an annulment of the contested Regulation, and the inadmissibility of his action, with respect to form, leads to the dismissal of all his other prayers, intentions and orders sought. Consequently 1. Whereas the Court does not find in the facts and pleas-in-law invoked by the Applicant, elements amounting to a sure and certain injury done against him as an individual; 2. Whereas the Applicant does not portray his own professional competence in any way whatsoever; whereas such portrayal may have enabled him to possibly take up the post of Secretary General of ECOWAS Parliament; 3. Whereas finally, he was also unable to establish that the challenged Regulation affected him directly and 5