13      C’est, dès lors, à l’évidence, sans commettre d’erreur de droit que le Tribunal a rejeté le recours comme étant irrecevable, conformément à la jurisprudence constante selon laquelle les conditions de recevabilité d’un recours en carence, fixées à l’article 265 TFUE, ne sont pas remplies lorsque l’institution invitée à agir a pris position sur cette invitation avant l’introduction du recours (ordonnance du 8 février 2018, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb/Commission, C‑508/17 P, non publiée, EU:C:2018:72, point 15 ainsi que jurisprudence citée).

24      If only for the sake of completeness it must be found that, assuming that that claim was admissible from a purely procedural point of view, the claim would nevertheless necessarily have been dismissed as manifestly unfounded. As is apparent from ample correspondence between the appellant and the Commission, the Commission expressed a clear and final point of view on the complaint in question. Thus, that institution did define its position; the fact that the position defined by the institution concerned does not satisfy the appellant is of no relevance (see order of 8 February 2018, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb v Commission, C‑508/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:72, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).

20 As is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice, the General Court was correct to point out, in paragraphs 29 to 31 of the order under appeal, that the conditions for admissibility of an action for failure to act, laid down in Article 265 TFEU, are not satisfied where the institution called upon to act has defined its position on that request before the action is brought (orders of 8 February 2018, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb v Commission, C‑508/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:72, paragraph 15, and of 3 December 2019, WB v Commission, C‑270/19 P, not published, EU:C:2019:1038, paragraph 13), and that the adoption of an act other than that which the persons concerned would have wished or regarded as necessary, such as a duly reasoned refusal to act in accordance with the call to act, constitutes a definition of position putting an end to the failure to act (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 November 2013, Commission v Council, C‑196/12, EU:C:2013:753, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

39 In that regard, it is sufficient to note that, although the conditions governing the admissibility of an action before the Court of Justice must be interpreted in the light of the values and fundamental rights of EU law, those values and fundamental rights cannot, however, have the effect of altering the system of judicial review laid down by the Treaties, in particular the rules relating to the admissibility of direct actions brought before the EU Courts (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 October 2013, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, C‑583/11 P, EU:C:2013:625, paragraph 97, and order of 8 February 2018, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb v Commission, C‑508/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:72, paragraph 20).

31 As is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice, the General Court was correct to point out, in paragraphs 33 to 35 of the order under appeal, that the conditions for admissibility of an action for failure to act, laid down in Article 265 TFEU, are not satisfied where the institution called upon to act has defined its position on that request before the action is brought (orders of 8 February 2018, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb v Commission, C‑508/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:72, paragraph 15, and of 3 December 2019, WB v Commission, C‑270/19 P, not published, EU:C:2019:1038, paragraph 13), and that the adoption of a measure different from that sought or considered necessary by the persons concerned, such as a duly reasoned refusal to act in accordance with the call to act, constitutes a definition of position putting an end to the failure to act (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 November 2013, Commission v Council, C‑196/12, EU:C:2013:753, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

36      Moreover, the appellant cannot claim that, in so far as the email of 11 January 2019 is a confirmatory act of a previous act by which the Court of Justice of the European Union took a position on his earlier request, dated 6 January 2017, that email is not an act open to challenge before the EU courts and, accordingly, it also cannot be considered to be defining a position within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU. It must be borne in mind that the issue of the conditions of admissibility of an action for failure to act and, by extension, the conditions in which it should be found that the action has become devoid of purpose, with the result that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on that action, is distinct from the issue of whether the act, adopted by the EU institution to which the request was made and which brings its failure to act to an end, may be the subject of an action for annulment (see, to that effect, order of 8 February 2018, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb v Commission, C‑508/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:72, paragraph 19).

15      D’emblée, il convient de relever que le Tribunal a rappelé, au point 10 de l’ordonnance attaquée, que les conditions de recevabilité d’un recours en carence, fixées à l’article 265 TFUE, ne sont pas remplies lorsque l’institution invitée à agir a pris position sur cette invitation avant l’introduction du recours (voir, en ce sens, arrêt du 1er avril 1993, Pesqueras Echebastar/Commission, C‑25/91, EU:C:1993:131, point 11).

23      En effet, il importe, en premier lieu, de constater que c’est à bon droit que le Tribunal a jugé comme étant indifférente la circonstance que la prise de position de la Commission n’a pas donné satisfaction à CBA, dès lors que l’article 265 TFUE vise la carence par l’abstention de statuer ou de prendre position et non pas l’adoption d’un acte différent de celui que les intéressés auraient souhaité ou estimé nécessaire (voir, en ce sens, arrêts du 24 novembre 1992, Buckl e.a./Commission, C‑15/91 et C‑108/91, EU:C:1992:454, points 16 et 17, ainsi que du 1er avril 1993, Pesqueras Echebastar/Commission, C‑25/91, EU:C:1993:131, point 12).

23      En effet, il importe, en premier lieu, de constater que c’est à bon droit que le Tribunal a jugé comme étant indifférente la circonstance que la prise de position de la Commission n’a pas donné satisfaction à CBA, dès lors que l’article 265 TFUE vise la carence par l’abstention de statuer ou de prendre position et non pas l’adoption d’un acte différent de celui que les intéressés auraient souhaité ou estimé nécessaire (voir, en ce sens, arrêts du 24 novembre 1992, Buckl e.a./Commission, C‑15/91 et C‑108/91, EU:C:1992:454, points 16 et 17, ainsi que du 1er avril 1993, Pesqueras Echebastar/Commission, C‑25/91, EU:C:1993:131, point 12).

24      En second lieu, il convient de rappeler que l’effectivité d’un recours, tel que garanti par l’article 47 de la Charte, ne dépend pas de l’issue favorable pour le requérant (voir, en ce sens, arrêt du 12 septembre 2006, Reynolds Tobacco e.a./Commission, C‑131/03 P, EU:C:2006:541, point 84).