Judgment;Judgment (extracts) — ECLI:EU:T:2017:461
Date: 2017-07-04
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Research and technological development
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Greece

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber), 4 July 2017 1. Actions for annulment — Action against a decision merely confirming a previous decision — Inadmissibility — Concept of confirmatory decision (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) 2. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) 3. Actions for annulment — Action against a decision forming a writ of execution — Decision open to challenge on the basis of Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility (Arts 263 TFEU, 288 TFEU and 299 TFEU) 1. A measure merely confirming an initial decision does not affect the interested party’s situation and, accordingly, does not constitute a measure against which an action for annulment could be brought. An action for the annulment of a measure which merely confirms a previous decision that has become final is inadmissible. A measure is regarded as merely confirmatory of a previous decision if it contains no new factor as compared with the previous measure and was not preceded by a re-examination of the circumstances of the person to whom that measure was addressed. 2. As regards an action brought by the beneficiary of a project financed by the European Union against an enforceable decision of the commission within the meaning of Article 299 TFEU for the recovery of sums unduly paid, it cannot reasonably be claimed that the action is inadmissible on the ground that that decision is a confirmatory decision as regards the earlier refusals by the Commission to grant the applicant payment facilities during the implementation of a contract concluded with that institution. Unlike an enforceable decision, such a refusal does not involve the exercise of public powers conferred on the Commission in its capacity as an administrative authority and does not produce binding legal effects falling outside of the contractual relationship between that institution and the applicant. Moreover, there can be no question of a circumvention of the time limit for bringing an action for annulment, since the refusals in question form part of the contractual relationship between the Commission and the applicant and a dispute before the EU Courts, under Article 272 TFEU, concerning contractual rights and obligations is not subject to the same procedural time limit. (see paras 84, 94, 95) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 86, 87) 4. Where there is a contract between the applicant and one of the EU institutions, an action may be brought before the European Union judicative on the basis of Article 263 TFEU only where the contested measure aims to produce binding legal effects falling outside of the contractual relationship between the parties and which involve the exercise of the prerogatives of a public authority conferred on the contracting institution acting in its capacity as an administrative authority. A decision enforceable within the meaning of Article 299 TFEU constitutes a challengeable act pursuant to Article 263 TFEU when that decision, in the absence of any contrary indication in the FEU Treaty, is among those referred to in Article 288 TFEU. The merits of such an enforceable decision can be disputed only before the court hearing the proceedings for annulment, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU. That is also the case, in particular, when an enforceable decision was adopted for the purposes of recovering a debt stemming from a contract concluded by an institution. Even if a contract of that type expressly allows such decisions to be issued, their legal nature remains defined not by the contract or the national law applicable to it but by Article 299 TFEU. (see paras 88, 90, 91)