Order — ECLI:EU:T:2010:39
Date: 2010-02-12
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Action for annulment;Judgment delivered after back reference

Summary of the Order Actions for annulment – Acts open to challenge – Concept – Acts producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 2965/94) Only measures which produce binding legal effects and are capable of affecting the interests of third parties by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position constitute measures challengeable by an action for annulment. In order to ascertain whether a measure the annulment of which is sought is open to challenge, by an action for annulment, it is necessary to look to its substance as the form in which it is cast is, in principle, immaterial. Thus, only an act by which its author reaches an unequivocal and definitive position, in a form enabling its nature to be identified, constitutes a decision challengeable by an action for annulment, provided, however, that the decision is not the confirmation of a prior act. By contrast, a written expression of opinion or a simple statement of intention cannot constitute a decision challengeable by an action for annulment, since it cannot produce legal effects or is not intended to produce such effects. The Centre for Translation for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) is an agency established by Regulation No 2965/94. It follows from the division of powers between the CdT’s Director and its Board of Management, established by Articles 9 and 13 to 15 of that regulation, that the decision of principle relating to the payment of CdT’s contribution to the Community pension scheme falls within the Board of Management’s powers. It is therefore capable of adopting a decision capable of affecting the legal position of a third party, namely the Community’s financial interests. Nonetheless, a position taken, in the form of an opinion, by that Board of Management in which it confines itself to informing the Commission that it considers that the Commission has not given a satisfactory reply to its repeated requests that the Commission specify the legal basis on which it relied to claim payment of employer’s contributions to the Community pension scheme and which concludes with an invitation to pursue discussions and with a suggested procedure to settle the dispute is not definitive and may not entail binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of third parties, namely, in the present case, the Community’s financial interests. (see paras 52-55, 60, 62-63, 66)