Actions for annulment

Through actions for annulment, the applicant requests the annulment of an act adopted by a European Union institution, body, office or organisation. Actions for annulment may be brought by the European institutions or by individuals under certain conditions.

In Case T-374/04 Germany v Commission,²⁷⁸ Germany requested the partial annulment of a Commission Decision. The applicant first compared different language versions to support its argument (emphasis added):

In the applicant’s submission, 
[…] It cannot be inferred from either the German version or the other language versions of Directive 2003/87 that the installations referred to in the NAP are entitled to precisely the amount of allowances that has been notified to the Commission.²⁷⁹


In the findings, the Court first addressed a literal interpretation and invoked method of interpretation M1.2. (emphasis added):

For the purposes of a literal interpretation, it must be borne in mind that Community legislation is drafted in various languages and that the different language versions are all equally authentic; an interpretation of a provision of Community law thus involves a comparison of the different language versions (Case 283/81 Cilfit [1982]

ECR 3415, paragraph 18). 
[…]²⁸⁰

When comparing different languages, the Court detected some differences:

In light of the foregoing, significant nuances exist between the various language versions of criterion 10 of Annex III to Directive 2003/87, each of which is authentic;

depending on the words used, those versions confer upon the individual allocation of emission allowances a character which is, rather, subjective and intentional or, on the

275 Ibid., paragraph 49.

276 Ibid., paragraph 51.

277 Ibid., paragraph 52.

278 Case T-374/04 Germany v Commission, EU:T:2007:332.

279 Ibid., paragraph 51.

280 Ibid., paragraph 95.

178 other hand, a more or less objective and neutral character. […] ²⁸¹

In order to interpret the contested provision, the Court moved on to historical interpretation:

Accordingly, this literal interpretation and this comparative reading of the various language versions of criterion 10 of Annex III to Directive 2003/87 should be supplemented by a historical interpretation.²⁸²


The historical interpretation helped clarify the conclusion drawn in paragraph 96 of the judgment but the Court continued with a contextual interpretation: ‘It is accordingly necessary to provide a contextual interpretation of criterion 10 of Annex III to Directive 2003/87’.²⁸³
Finally, by this teleological-systematic interpretation the Court clarified this question.²⁸⁴

This case is a good example of the different methods of interpretation that the Court can apply. It seems to be a progressive process starting with the analysis of the wording and concluding with a teleological-systematic interpretation. Historical interpretation was mentioned because the problematic instrument was a directive and the Court could consult the draft directive, the Common Position adopted by the Council and the amendment to the draft directive that the European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy proposed.²⁸⁵ However, as we remarked before, in the case of the treaties as well as regulations (see Case T-324/05 Estonia v Commission), there are no preparatory documents so it is not possible to go back to the history of the instrument.

In the Joined Cases T-349/06, T-371/06, T-14/07, T-15/07 and T-332/07
Germany v Commission, Germany also sought the annulment of some Decisions. The applicant claimed that the provision in question had to be interpreted in its context and in relation to the ‘spirit and purpose of the provision’.²⁸⁶ It also stated that the reference to other language versions was not a sufficient statement of reasons since the German version was unequivocal and the English and French versions did not provide convincing support for the Commission’s interpretation.²⁸⁷

281 Ibid., paragraph 96.

282 Ibid., paragraph 97.

283 Ibid., paragraph 100.

284 Ibid., paragraph 102.

285 Ibid., paragraph 98.

286 Joined Cases T-349/06, T-371/06, T-14/07, T-15/07 and T-332/07 Germany v Commission, EU:T:2008:318, paragraph 48

287 Ibid., paragraph 53.

179 Very interestingly, in order to interpret the contested provision, the Court also went through all methods of interpretation:

[…] Under those circumstances, when considering whether the arguments put forward are well founded, the case-law requires that point 6.2 of the Guidelines must be interpreted literally, historically, contextually and teleologically.²⁸⁸

When invoking the need to interpret the provision in the light of the other language versions, the Court mentioned the delicate issue of legal certainty (emphasis added):

[…] The need for a uniform interpretation of Community regulations necessitates that one language version should not be considered in isolation, but that it should be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (Case 19/67 van der Vecht [1967] ECR 345 at 353), even if that means that the provision at issue has to be interpreted and applied in a manner at variance with the natural and usual meaning of the words used in one or more linguistic versions, contrary to the requirements of legal certainty (see, to that effect, Case 80/76 North Kerry Milk Products [1977] ECR 425, paragraph 11).

The Court then recognised there was ‘indeed a difference between the German version and the other language versions of point 6.2 of the Guidelines’.²⁸⁹ As stated at the beginning of the judgment, in order to answer the question the Court also examined the contextual,²⁹⁰ historical and teleological interpretations.²⁹¹

In Case C-370/07 Commission v Council,²⁹² the Commission sought the annulment of a Council decision. The Commission sent to the Council a proposal for the adoption of the contested decision, which included as its legal basis Articles 175(1) EC and 133 EC and the second subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC. The Council adopted the contested decision but did not indicate the legal basis underlying it.²⁹³

The Commission put forward a single plea in support of its action, alleging breach of duty for failure to state reasons referred to in Article 253 EC (now 296 TFEU), on the ground that the contested decision failed to state the legal basis on which it was founded.²⁹⁴ The omission of

288 Ibid., paragraph 66.

289 Ibid., paragraph 68.

290 Ibid., paragraph 70.

291 Ibid., paragraph 72.

292 Case C-370/07 Commission v Council, EU:C:2009:590.

293 Ibid., paragraphs 7 and 8.

294 Ibid., paragraph 19.

180 the legal basis, the Commission contended, caused a great deal of uncertainty as to the procedure actually followed by the Council and affected the prerogatives of the Parliament.²⁹⁵ Article 253 EC provided (emphasis added):

The Council based its argument on a terminological distinction that appeared in the Danish, Dutch, German and Slovene versions of the EC Treaty. It argued that the contested decision

295 Ibid., paragraph 21.