54As regards the decision of 28 April 2004, it should be noted that the latter relates, like that of 26 June 2003, to the position of Mr Weißenfels in regard to Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations and is aimed at updating the amount of the Luxembourg allowance deducted from the allowance under the Staff Regulations. Even if it were acknowledged that, in the light of that finding, the decision of 28 April 2004 might be regarded as confirmatory of that of 26 June 2003, the pleas made against it cannot be declared inadmissible on that ground, since the decision of 26 June 2003 was challenged within the prescribed time-limit. An action against a confirmatory decision is inadmissible only if the confirmed decision has become final in relation to the person concerned for failing to bring an action within the time-limit Otherwise, the person concerned is entitled to challenge either the confirmed decision, or the confirmatory decision, or both (see Joined Cases 193/87 and 194/87 Maurissen and European Public Service Union v Court of Auditors [1989] ECR 1045, paragraphs 25 and 26).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.