Judgment_paragraph 83 · Laurent Merlin v European Commission (C-69/25 P)

83It must be stated that the General Court was correct to point out, in paragraph 23 of the judgment under appeal, that the conditions for admissibility of an action for failure to act, laid down in Article 265 TFEU, are not satisfied where the institution called upon to act has defined its position on that request before the action is brought and that the adoption of a measure different from that sought or considered necessary by the persons concerned, such as a duly reasoned refusal to act in accordance with the call to act, constitutes a definition of position putting an end to the failure to act (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 March 2022, Wagenknecht v Commission, C‑130/21 P, EU:C:2022:226, paragraph 31, and order of 11 October 2024, ST v Frontex, C‑62/24 P, EU:C:2024:882, paragraph 20).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court

Court of Justice · Eighth Chamber

Case

C-69/25 P · ECLI:EU:C:2026:478

Decided

11 Jun 2026

Procedure

Appeal

Applicants

Laurent Merlin; Stéphane Pinto and 26 more

Gaëtan Delsart; Gaëtan Baillet; Jean-Yves Noël; Christophe Lhomel; Jérémy Lhomel; Stéphane Fournier; Alexandre Fournier; Christian Dubois; Franck Nowe; Jean-Pierre Deparis; Frédéric Drogerys; Jean-Marie Baheu; Jonathan Delsart; José Pinto; Mathieu Pinto; Olivier Leprêtre; Josse Martin; Lionel Descharles; Loïc Merlin; Philippe Calone; Sébastien Leprêtre; Philippe Mahieu; Andries Visser; Charles Lines; Paul Lines; Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE)

Defendant

European Commission

Rapporteur

O. Spineanu-Matei

Advocate General

A. Biondi

Bench

3 judges

O. Spineanu-Matei, S. Rodin, N. Piçarra

Language

French

Official

CURIA · EUR-Lex 62025CJ0069

Laurent Merlin v European Commission (C-69/25 P)

Connections

Key facts

History · 1 version