32The administrative complaint and its rejection, whether express or implied, thus constitute an integral part of a complex procedure and are no more than a precondition for bringing the matter before the judicature. Consequently, the action before the judicature, even if formally directed against the rejection of the complaint, has the effect of bringing before the judicature the act adversely affecting the applicant against which the complaint was submitted (Case 293/87Vainker v Parliament [1989] ECR 23, paragraphs 7 and 8), except where the scope of the rejection of the complaint differs from that of the measure against which that complaint was made (Case T-281/04Staboli v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-251 and II-A-2-1303, paragraph 26). It has been held on several occasions that an express decision rejecting a complaint may, in the light of its content, not be confirmatory of the measure contested by the applicant. That is the case where the decision rejecting the complaint contains a re-examination of the applicant’s situation in the light of new elements of law or of fact, or where it changes or adds to the original decision. In such circumstances, the rejection of the complaint constitutes a measure subject to review by the judicature, which will take it into consideration when assessing the legality of the contested measure (Case T-258/01Eveillard v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I-A-167 and II-747, paragraph 31; Case T-375/02Cavallaro v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I-A-151 and II-673, paragraphs 63 to 66; and Case T-377/08 PCommission v Birkhoff [2009] ECR-SC I-B-133 and II-B-1-807, paragraphs 50 to 59 and 64) or will even regard it as an act adversely affecting the applicant replacing the contested measure (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 33/79 and 75/79 Kuhner v Commission [1980] ECR 1677, paragraph 9; Joined Cases T-338/00 and T-376/00Morello v Commission, [2002] ECR-SC I-A-301 and II-1457, paragraph 35; and Case T-389/02Sandini v Court of Justice [2004] ECR-SC I-A-295 and II-1339, paragraph 49).