Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2012:823
Date: 2012-12-19
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Budget;Financial provisions
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Greece

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 19 December 2012 1. Own resources of the European Union — Protection of the financial interests of the Union — Countering fraud and other illegal activities — Early warning system for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies — Effects of a warning (Commission Decision 2008/969, Arts 15 to 17 and 19 to 22) 2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Review by the Court of the findings of fact — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate or contradictory grounds — Admissibility — Scope of the obligation to state reasons (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 4. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law 5. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 263 TFEU) 1. In order to counter fraud and any other illegal activities in the context of the protection of the financial interests of the European Union, Articles 15 to 17 and 19 to 22 of Decision 2008/969 concerning the early warning system for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies not only permit but also, and primarily, require the authorising officers concerned to adopt specific measures against the entity or the project concerned. Therefore, the impact of a warning about an entity in that system cannot be confined within the institution concerned and necessarily affects relations between the authorising officers concerned and that entity. Moreover, even if the consequences of a W1 warning are less restrictive than those of W2 to W5 warnings, the fact remains that the reinforced monitoring measures which the authorising officer concerned is required to take against the entity concerned are not confined entirely to the institution internally, but are capable of having effects on the relations between that institution and the entity concerned. However, that does not imply that the external effects are automatically such as to bring about a distinct change in the legal situation of the entity affected. The Court must ascertain on a case by case basis whether there is such a change. (see paras 37, 38, 42, 44) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 56-59, 67, 76) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 63, 64) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 90) 5. An action for annulment is available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position. The question of the admissibility of an action for annulment must, therefore, be assessed according to criteria relating to the substance of the contested measures. (see paras 94, 95)