The Federal Republic of Germany and also Glunz and OSB maintain that the contested judgment infringed the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, since the Court of First Instance considered that Kronofrance was ‘directly and individually concerned’ by the contested decision and therefore held that the action brought by that company was admissible.
Saksamaa Liitvabariik ning Glunz ja OSB väidavad, et vaidlustatud kohtuotsus rikub EÜ artikli 230 neljandat lõiku, sest Esimese Astme Kohus leidis, et vaidlusalune otsus puudutab Kronofrance’i „otseselt ja isiklikult”, ning otsustas seega, et selle ettevõtja hagi on vastuvõetav.