Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2021.
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).