"First, the sole fact that the operators which have made a declaration or notification or hold an authorisation were identifiable at the time of the adoption of the contested measure cannot suffice to establish that they are individually concerned where that measure applies by virtue of general and abstract considerations. . . . Secondly, the argument – which is, moreover, disputed by the Commission – based on the small number of undertakings affected by the contested measure cannot succeed either. It should be recalled that natural or legal persons cannot be individually concerned by a measure of general application unless they are affected by it by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and thereby distinguishes them individually in the same way as an addressee. The number of natural or legal persons affected by such a measure is not, however, decisive (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 April 2004, Commission v Jégo-Quéré, C‑263/02 P, EU:C:2004:210, paragraphs 43 to 46 and the case-law cited). Thirdly, contrary to the Commission’s claims, since the authorisations granted under Directive 2014/40 relate to the marketing of tobacco products which comply with the requirements of that directive, there is no doubt that the absolute prohibition on marketing heated tobacco products with characterising flavours laid down in the contested measure will necessarily have the effect of calling into question the authorisations held by some of the applicants. Such authorisations, however, cannot be regarded as differentiating the position of the holders of those authorisations and distinguishing that position individually with regard to the contested measure as if those holders had been its addressees. Moreover, the authorisations in question do not confer on their holders rights comparable to those enjoyed by the applicants and appellants in the cases referred to in paragraphs 40 and 41 above. First of all, the effects of the contested measure are produced in the same way both in respect of operators which have been granted an authorisation in the Member States which have introduced an authorisation mechanism in accordance with Article 19(3) of Directive 2014/40 for heated tobacco products with characterising flavours and in respect of operators which have made the declarations provided for in Article 5 of that directive or the notifications provided for in Article 19 thereof for those products, or even in respect of operators which have not yet been granted an authorisation or made a declaration or notification, but which intend to place such products on the market. Thus, none of the operators in those situations is distinguished individually with regard to the contested measure. Next, as has been noted in paragraph 43 above, the authorisations and the declarations or notifications meet objective requirements concerning tobacco products as laid down in Directive 2014/40, which are determined in a general and abstract manner for all operators. It follows that the authorisations issued by Member States are granted without exclusivity, on the sole basis of the compliance of the products, just as no exclusivity results from the declarations or notifications made by operators. Lastly, Directive 2014/40 provides that various delegated acts may specify or amend the conditions for marketing tobacco products falling within its scope. That is true in particular, as regards the withdrawal of the exemption in question in the present case, of Article 7(12) of that directive. It follows that the authorisations to market heated tobacco products with characterising flavours granted to some of the applicants, like the right to market such products following a declaration or a notification, could not be regarded as having been acquired indefinitely. Fourthly, the circumstance, relied on by the applicants in response to the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission, that manufacturers and importers of heated tobacco products with a characterising flavour are not, having regard to the contested measure, in the same situation as the industries upstream and downstream in the production and distribution chain is irrelevant to the question whether the applicants belong to a limited class within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 41 above. The applicants, for the purpose of demonstrating that they are individually concerned by the contested measure, must prove not that they are affected in a way which is different from other operators, but that they are affected by reason of an attribute or a factual situation which is peculiar to them and which distinguishes them in the same way as the addressee of a decision (see, to that effect, order of 12 December 2003, Bactria v Commission, C‑258/02 P, EU:C:2003:675, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). It follows from the foregoing that the authorisations, declarations and notifications on which the applicants rely do not make it possible to prove that they are individually concerned by the contested measure."