65Furthermore, in so far as the applicant might also have intended to raise the complaint alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty outside of the contractual context, it must be recalled that the fundamental requirement of legal certainty, in its various forms, aims to ensure that situations and legal relationships governed by Community law remain foreseeable (Case C-63/93Duff and Others [1996] ECR I-569, paragraph 20; Case T-73/95Oliveira v Commission [1997] ECR II-381, paragraph 29; and Case T-20/03Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan v Commission [2008] ECR II-2305, paragraph 136). The principle of legal certainty precludes, inter alia, a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication (Case 98/78Racke [1979] ECR 69, paragraph 88; Case 224/82Meiko-Konservenfabrik [1983] ECR 2539, paragraph 12; and Case T-357/02Freistaat Sachsen v Commission [2007] ECR II-1261, paragraph 95). In the present case, it is not apparent from the documents before the Court that the Bureau’s decision of 1 April 2009 produced effects prior to its notification to all Members on 18 May 2009. Indeed, the abolition of the possibility of payment of part of the pension in the form of a lump sum applied only from that date. Thus Members who had ceased to hold office prior to that date, and had therefore acquired rights to the additional pension, were not affected by that decision.