I would refer to points 41 to 43 of this opinion for to extent that that argument is to be understood as meaning that the insertion of the footnote in annex to regulation provide for by article. that the regulation , as amended by the contested regulation.
I would refer to points 41 to 43 of this opinion for to extent that that argument is to be understood as meaning that the insertion of the footnote in annex to regulation provide for by article. that the regulation , as amended by the contested regulation.
To the extent that that argument is to be understood as meaning that the insertion of the footnote in Annex II to Regulation No 539/2001 provided for by Article 1(4)(f) of that regulation, as amended by the contested regulation, does not constitute an ‘amendment’ within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU, because ‘amendment’ in that sense does not include the ‘addition’ of new non-essential elements to the content of the basic act, I would refer to points 41 to 43 of this Opinion.