Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 61999TO0096

Shrnutí usnesení

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

22 May 2000

Case T-96/99

Peter F. Fleurbaay

v

European Investment Bank

‛European Investment Bank (EIB) — Actions by servants — Challengeable act — Manifest inadmissibility’

Full text in French   II-415

Application for:

annulment of the decision taken by the European Investment Bank by letter of 18 February 1999 from its Chairman.

Held:

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The parties shall bear their own costs. The Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Act having no binding legal effects — Letter from the European Investment Bank informing the applicant of the action it intends to take following a recommendation of the Conciliation Board — Exclusion

The fact that a letter has been sent by a Community institution to its addressee, in response to a request made by the latter, is not enough for it to be treated as a decision. Only measures producing binding legal effects of such a kind as to affect the interests of the applicant by significantly altering his legal position constitute challengeable acts.

A letter whereby an institution informs the person concerned of the action it intends to take following an act having no binding legal effects does not produce such legal effects and cannot therefore be treated as a challengeable act.

Therefore an action for annulment of a letter whereby the European Investment Bank informed a former member of its staff of the action it intended to take following a recommendation of the Conciliation Board must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, since such a letter does not alter the applicant's legal position.

(see paras 26 to 30)

See: C-25/92 Miethke v Parliament [1993] ECR I-473, para. 10; T-29/93 Calvo Alonso-Cortés v Commission [1993] ECR II-1389, para. 43; T-5/96 Sveriges Betodlares and Henrikson v Commission [1996] ECR II-1299, para. 26; T-22/98 Scottish Sofi Fruit Growers v Commission [1998] ECR II-4219, para. 34

Top