Order — ECLI:EU:T:2003:269
Date: 2003-10-15
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Development cooperation
Concepts: General;Costs
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Order 
1. Actions for annulment — Action challenging a decision confirming a decision not 
challenged within the time-limit — Inadmissible — Concept of confirmatory decision 
(Art. 230 EC) 
II - 4389 
SUMMARY — CASE T-372/02 
2. Actions for annulment — jurisdiction of the Community judicature — Claims seek­
ing the issue of directions to an institution — Inadmissible 
(Arts 230 EC and 233 EC) 
3. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Concept — Matters to be 
taken into consideration — Costs relating to procedures before the European 
Ombudsman — Not included 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b)) 
1. An action for annulment brought 
against a decision which merely con­
firms an earlier decision not challenged 
in due time is inadmissible. A decision 
is a mere confirmation of an earlier 
decision where it contains no new 
factors as compared with the earlier 
measure and is not preceded by any 
re-examination of the situation of the 
person to whom the earlier measure 
was addressed. 
In this connection, the Commission's 
refusal, in a decision rejecting an 
application by a non-governmental 
organisation to sign a framework part­
nership agreement with the European 
Community Humanitarian Office, to 
initiate disciplinary proceedings against 
members of the institution's staff can­
not constitute a new factor. That 
refusal is clearly separate from the 
decision to reject the application to 
sign the framework partnership agree­
ment. To adopt a contrary approach 
would be tantamount to accepting that 
an undertaking could, by simply 
requesting that disciplinary proceed­
ings be pursued against members of 
staff of the institution responsible for a 
decision, extend the time-limit for 
bringing an action for annulment of 
that decision. 
(see paras 36, 41-42) 
2. The Court may not issue directions to 
the Community institutions or assume 
the role assigned to them. 
In an action for annulment founded on 
Article 230 EC, the jurisdiction of the 
Community judicature is limited to 
reviewing the legality of the contested 
measure. If it concludes that the meas­
ure is unlawful, it annuls it. It is then 
for the institution concerned to adopt, 
in accordance with Article 233 EC, the 
necessary measures to comply with the 
judgment annulling that measure. 
(see paras 48-49) 
II - 4390 
INTERNATIONALER HILFSFONDS v COMMISSION 
3. Under Article 91(b) of the Rules of 
Procedure of the Court of First 
Instance, 'expenses necessarily incurred 
by the parties for the purpose of the 
proceedings, in particular the travel 
and subsistence expenses and the 
remuneration of agents, advisers or 
lawyers' are to be regarded as recover­
able costs. It follows from that provi­
sion that recoverable costs are limited 
to expenses which have been incurred 
for the purpose of the proceedings 
before the Court of First Instance and 
were necessary for that purpose. By 
'proceedings' the provision refers only 
to proceedings before the Court of First 
Instance. Applicants therefore cannot 
in any event obtain, in an action for 
annulment, reimbursement by the 
Commission of the costs relating to 
procedures before the European 
Ombudsman. 
(see para. 51) 
II - 4391