30As to the question whether the Decision is of ‘individual’ concern, the Commission, citing the judgments in Case 25/62Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, in Joined Cases 10/68 and 18/68 Eridania and Others v Commission [1969] ECR 459, in Metro II, in Case T-465/93Murgia Messapica v Commission [1994] ECR II-361, paragraph 25, and in Case T-2/93Air France v Commission [1994] ECR II-323, paragraph 42, submits that Kruidvat is not affected by it differently from any other retailer — department store, multiple store, individual shop or otherwise — wishing to sell Givenchy products (see also Case 206/87Lefebvre Frère et Soeur v Commission [1989] ECR 275, Case 205/87Nuova Ceam v Commission [1987] ECR 4427 and Case 191/88Co-Frutta v Commission [1989] ECR 793). Nor does the Decision significantly affect Kruidvat's position in the market within the meaning of the judgments in Case 169/84Cofaz and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 391 and in Case C-198/91Cook v Commission [1993] ECR I-2487, paragraph 23. In that respect, the facts which gave rise to Case C-358/89Extramet Industrie v Council [1991] ECR I-2501 are significantly different.