Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:151
Date: 2002-06-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Public procurement in the European Union
Concepts: General;Extent of judicial review
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Action brought against a decision merely confirming an 
earlier decision — Inadmissible — Definition of a confirmatory decision — Identical 
decision taken after re-examination of the circumstances — Excluded from the 
definition 
(Art. 230 EC) 
II - 2719 
SUMMARY — CASE T-365/00 
2. European Community public procurement — Conclusion of a contract following an 
invitation to tender — Discretion of the institutions — judicial review — Limits 
1. An application for annulment brought 
against a decision which merely con­
firms an earlier decision is inadmiss­
ible. 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 addressee of the earlier measure. 
The fact that the Parliament does not 
resile from its initial view after con­
ducting a fresh examination of the 
arguments put forward by the 
addressee of the earlier measure is not 
sufficient to allow a decision to be 
regarded as purely confirmatory of an 
earlier decision. 
(see paras 30, 35) 
2. In procedures for the award of a 
contract following a call for tenders, 
the Community institutions are 
required to ensure that the conditions 
laid down in an invitation to tender do 
not induce potential tenderers to 
infringe the national legislation appli­
cable to their business. Since the inter­
pretation of national law is a matter 
solely for the national authorities, the 
Community Court has merely to deter­
mine whether the contracting institu­
tion, in a decision rejecting a request 
made by tenderer whose tender was not 
accepted concerning the validity of the 
contract entered into by that institution 
and the successful tenderer, committed 
a manifest error of assessment in its 
interpretation of the national legis­
lation. 
(see para. 63) 
II - 2720