Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:79
Date: 2018-02-20
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Belgium

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 20 February 2018 1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment by reference to objective criteria — Recommendation of the Commission concerning online gambling services — Act not intended to produce legal effects — Not included (Arts 263 TFEU and 288, fifth para., TFEU; Commission Recommendation 2014/478) 2. EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Consideration of different language versions — Interpretation according to context and objective 1. Any provisions adopted by the institutions, whatever their form, which are intended to have binding legal effects are regarded as ‘challengeable acts’ for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU. As regards recommendations, they are, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, excluded from the scope of that provision and pursuant to the fifth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, they have no binding force. However, in exceptional cases, the impossibility of bringing an action for annulment against a recommendation does not apply if the contested act, by reason of its content, does not constitute a genuine recommendation. In that regard, in order to determine whether the contested act produces binding legal effects, it is necessary to examine the substance of that act and to assess those effects on the basis of objective criteria, such as the content of that act, taking into account, as appropriate, the context in which it was adopted and the powers of the institution which adopted the act. As regards Recommendation 2014/478/EU on principles for the protection of consumers and players of online gambling services and for the prevention of minors from gambling online, it is apparent, after an analysis, conducted to the requisite legal standard, of the wording, the content and the purpose of the contested recommendation, as well as of the context of which it forms part, that that recommendation does not have and is not intended to have binding legal effects, with the result that it cannot be classified as a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU. (see paras 29-32, 37) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 49, 50)