Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.
Date: 2006-01-10
41. In that connection, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the choice of the legal basis for a Community measure must be based on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review and include in particular the aim and content of the measure (see Case 45/86 Commission  v Council  [1987] ECR 1493, paragraph 11; Case C-300/89 Commission  v Council  ( Titanium Dioxide ) [1991] ECR I-2867, paragraph 10; Case C-268/94 Portugal  v Council  [1996] ECR I-6177, paragraph 22; and Case C-176/03 Commission  v Council  [2005] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 45).
42. If examination of a Community measure reveals that it pursues a twofold purpose or that it has a twofold component and if one of those is identifiable as the main or predominant purpose or component, whereas the other is merely incidental, the act must be based on a single legal basis, namely that required by the main or predominant purpose or component (see Case C-36/98 Spain  v Council  [2001] ECR I-779, paragraph 59; Case C-211/01 Commission  v Council  [2003] ECR I‑8913, paragraph 39; and Case C-338/01 Commission  v Council  [2004] ECR I‑4829, paragraph 55).
43. Exceptionally, if on the other hand it is established that the act simultaneously pursues a number of objectives or has several components that are indissociably linked, without one being secondary and indirect in relation to the other, such an act will have to be founded on the various corresponding legal bases (see, to that effect, Case C-336/00 Huber  [2002] ECR I-7699, paragraph 31; Case C-281/01 Commission  v Council  [2002] ECR I-12049, paragraph 35; and Case C-211/01 Commission  v Council , cited above, paragraph 40).
45. In that connection, it must be borne in mind, first, that, as moreover is clear from both the preamble and Article 1(1)(a) of the contested regulation, its primary objective is to implement the Convention. As the Court has held in paragraph 51 of its judgment of today’s date in Case C-94/03 Commission  v Council , that Convention specifically includes two components regulating trade and protecting human health and the environment, which are linked so closely that the decision approving that Convention on behalf of the Community should have been based on Articles 133 EC and Article 175(1) EC.
47. In this case, however, use of the same legal bases both for the decision approving the Convention on behalf of the Community and for the contested regulation, which implements the Convention at Community level, is necessary in any event, in view of the clear convergence of the provisions of those two measures, reflecting both the concern to regulate trade in hazardous chemicals and the concern to ensure sound management of those products and/or to protect human health and the environment against the harmful effects of trade in such products.
55. As regards the fact, referred to by the defendants, that other Community measures, such as Regulations Nos 259/93 and 338/97, or Regulation No 2455/92, which preceded the contested regulation, have a legal basis relating to environmental policy, it is entirely irrelevant in the context of the present case. In fact, according to settled case-law, the legal basis for an act must be determined having regard to its own aim and content and not to the legal basis used for the adoption of other Community measures which might, in certain cases, display similar characteristics (see, in particular, Case C-187/93 Parliament  v Council  [1994] ECR I-2857, paragraph 28, regarding, specifically, the choice of legal basis for Regulation No 259/93).
57. Admittedly, and as the Court held, in substance, in paragraphs 17 to 21 of the Titanium dioxide  judgment, cited above, recourse to a dual legal basis is not possible where the procedures laid down for each legal basis are incompatible with each other or where the use of two legal bases is liable to undermine the rights of the Parliament (see also, to that effect, Joined Cases C-164/97 and C‑165/97 Parliament  v Council  [1999] ECR I-1139, paragraph 14; and Case C‑338/01 Commission  v Council , cited above, paragraph 57). In this case, however, neither of those consequences follows from recourse to both Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC.
58. First, recourse to Article 133 EC as an additional basis could not in this case have had any impact on the voting rules applicable within the Council because, in the same way as Article 175(1) EC, Article 133(4) EC provides that the Council, in exercising the powers conferred upon it by that provision, is to act by a qualified majority.
59. Second, recourse to Article 133 EC jointly with Article 175(1) EC is likewise not liable to undermine the Parliament’s rights because, although the first-mentioned article does not formally provide for the participation of that institution in the adoption of a measure of the kind at issue in this case, the second article, on the other hand, expressly refers to the procedure provided for in Article 251 EC. In contrast to the situation at issue in the abovementioned Titanium dioxide  case, the use of a combination of legal bases does not therefore in this case involve any encroachment upon the Parliament’s rights since recourse to Article 175(1) EC enables that institution to adopt the measure under the co-decision procedure.