31The applicant considers that the existing case-law confirms that the contested memorandum is an act adversely affecting him. He refers to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 17/78Deshormes v Commission [1979] ECR 189 and to the Opinion of Advocate General Caportorti in Case 167/80Curtis v Commission and Parliament [1981] ECR 1499, at 1512, 1534 and 1535. The applicant infers that, if those principles are applied to this case, it must be concluded that the memorandum of 27 March 1991 actually informed him of the manner in which the new sickness insurance rules would be applied to him regarding the application, subject to prior authorization, of Section X of Annex I. He stresses that the fact that he might be adversely affected is confirmed by the clarification in the memorandum that the information given is intended to enable him to make the necessary arrangements for the future.