European Commission v Council of the European Union.
Date: 2015-07-16
26. An action for annulment must be available in the case of all measures adopted by the EU institutions, irrespective of their nature or form, provided that they are intended to have legal effects (see judgment in Commission  v Council , C‑28/12, EU:C:2015:282, paragraph 14 and the case-law cited).
27. In order to ascertain whether such measures produce legal effects it is necessary to look to their substance (see, to this effect, judgment in Netherlands  v Commission , C‑147/96, EU:C:2000:335, paragraph 27).
28. In this regard, the Court has already held that a decision adopted on the basis of Article 218(3) and (4) TFEU produces legal effects as regards relations between the European Union and its Member States and between the EU institutions (see judgment in Commission  v Council , C‑114/12, EU:C:2014:2151, paragraph 40).
62. It is apparent from the Court’s case-law that Article 218 TFEU constitutes, as regards the conclusion of international treaties, an autonomous and general provision of constitutional scope, in that it confers specific powers on the EU institutions. With a view to establishing a balance between those institutions, it provides, in particular, that agreements between the European Union and one or more third States are to be negotiated by the Commission, in compliance with the negotiating directives drawn up by the Council, and then concluded by the Council, either after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament or after consulting it. The power to conclude such agreements is, however, conferred on the Council subject to the powers vested in the Commission in this field (see, to this effect, judgment in France v Commission , C‑327/91, EU:C:1994:305, paragraph 28).
69. As regards, next, the alleged breach of Article 13(2) TEU, it should be recalled that under that provision each EU institution is to act within the limits of the powers conferred on it by the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out in them. That provision reflects the principle of institutional balance, characteristic of the institutional structure of the European Union, a principle which requires that each of the institutions must exercise its powers with due regard for the powers of the other institutions (see judgment in Council  v Commission , C‑409/13, EU:C:2015:217, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited).
94. As regards the conditions for partial annulment of an EU act, it is clear from settled case-law that such annulment is possible only in so far as the elements whose annulment is sought may be severed from the remainder of the act (see judgments in Commission  v Council , C‑29/99, EU:C:2002:734, paragraph 45, and Germany v Commission , C‑239/01, EU:C:2003:514, paragraph 33). The Court has repeatedly ruled that that requirement of severability is not satisfied where the partial annulment of an act would have the effect of altering its substance (see judgments in Commission  v Poland , C‑504/09 P, EU:C:2012:178, paragraph 98, and Commission v Parliament and Council , C‑427/12, EU:C:2014:170, paragraph 16). Review of whether the contested provisions are severable requires consideration of their scope, in order to be able to assess whether their annulment would alter the spirit and substance of the decision challenged (see judgment in Commission  v Estonia , C‑505/09 P, EU:C:2012:179, paragraph 112 and the case-law cited).