Société française des Biscuits Delacre e.a. v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1990-02-14
15 It is true that the Court has consistently held that the statement of grounds required by Article 190 of the EEC Treaty must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Community authority which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and thus enable them to defend their rights and the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction ( see paragraph 19 of the judgment of 30 September 1982 in Case 108/81 Amylum v Council (( 1982 )) ECR 3107; paragraph 37 of the judgment of 8 November 1983 in Joined Cases 96 to 102, 104, 105, 108 and 110/82 IAZ and Others v Commission (( 1983 )) ECR 3369; and paragraph 38 of the judgment of 25 October 1984 in Case 185/83 University of Groningen v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Groningen (( 1984 )) ECR 3623 ). It is also accepted that, although the reasons on which a decision following a well-established line of decisions is based may be given in a summary manner, for example by a reference to those decisions, the Community authority must give an explicit account of its reasoning if the decision goes appreciably further than the previous decisions ( see paragraph 31 of the judgment of 26 November 1975 in Case 73/74 Groupement des fabricants de papiers peints and Others v Commission (( 1975 )) ECR 1491 ).
16 It is not necessary, however, for details of all relevant factual and legal aspects to be given . The Court has consistently held that the question whether the statement of the grounds for a decision meets the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question ( see paragraph 38 of the judgment in University of Groningen; paragraphs 36 and 37 of the judgment of 23 February 1978 in Case 92/77 An Bord Bainne v Minister for Agriculture (( 1978 )) ECR 497; and paragraphs 18 to 22 of the judgment of 25 October 1978 in Case 125/77 Koninklijke Scholten-Honig v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten (( 1978 )) ECR 1991 ). Moreover, the degree of precision of the statement of the reasons for a decision must be weighed against practical realities and the time and technical facilities available for making the decision ( see the judgment of 1 December 1965 in Case 16/65 Firma C . Schwarze v Einfuhr - und Vorratsstelle fuer Getreide und Futtermittel (( 1965 )) ECR 877 ).
26 In view of those circumstances, the Commission, which was under an obligation to manage existing butter stocks and dispose of them on the most favourable terms, had to adjust its policy of aid for butter consumption by biscuit manufacturers to meet market developments .
32 In order to determine whether this submission is well founded it must be borne in mind that, as the Court has held, the Community institutions have a wide discretionary power in regard to the common agricultural policy which reflects the responsibilities which the Treaty imposes on them ( paragraph 34 of the judgment of 11 March 1987 in Joined Cases 279, 280, 285 and 286/84 Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke and Others v Commission (( 1987 )) ECR 1069 ). In particular, the Commission must be recognized as having such a margin of discretion in choosing the means necessary for carrying out its policy in its capacity as authority responsible for the management of butter stocks, in which it has to adjust its policy of aid for butter consumption to meet fluctuating market conditions .
33 The Court has consistently held that whilst the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, traders cannot have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power will be maintained ( see paragraph 27 of the judgment of 15 July 1982 in Case 245/81 Edeka Zentrale AG v Germany (( 1982 )) ECR 2745, paragraph 27 of the judgment of 28 October 1982 in Case 52/81 Offene Handelsgesellschaft in Firma Werner Faust v Commission (( 1982 )) ECR 3745, and paragraph 33 of the judgment of 17 June 1987 in Joined Cases 424 and 425/85 Cooeperative Melkproducentenbedrijven Noord-Nederland BA ( Frico ) and Others v Voedselvoorzienings In - en Verkoopbureau (( 1987 )) ECR 2755 ). This is particularly true in an area such as the common organization of the markets whose purpose involves constant adjustments to meet changes in the economic situation ( see paragraph 22 of the judgment of 16 May 1979 in Case 84/78 Angelo Tomadini v Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato (( 1979 )) ECR 1801, paragraph 48 of the judgment of 5 May 1981 in Case 112/80 Firma Anton Duerbeck v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main/Flughafen (( 1981 )) ECR 1095, and paragraph 33 of the judgment in Frico, cited above ).
34 It follows that traders cannot claim a vested right to the maintenance of an advantage which they derive from the establishment of the common organization of the markets and which they enjoyed at a given time ( see paragraph 22 of the judgment of 27 September 1979 in Case 230/78 Eridiana-Zuccherifici Nazionali and Another v Minister for Agriculture and Forestry and Others (( 1979 )) ECR 2749, and paragraph 18 of the judgment of 21 May 1987 in Joined Cases 133 to 136/85 Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v Bundesanstalt fuer landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung (( 1987 )) ECR 2289 ).
37 Secondly, in view of the downward trend in stock levels which began in late 1986 and accelerated considerably during 1988, the applicants, as prudent and well-informed traders, should have foreseen the progressive increase in the selling price of butter and the concomitant reduction of the amount of aid, which are the inevitable consequences of a fall in stock levels . They are not therefore entitled to claim that they had a legitimate expectation that the amount of the aid would be maintained ( see paragraph 6 of the judgment of 1 February 1978 in Case 78/77 Firma Johann Luehrs v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (( 1978 )) ECR 169, and paragraph 13 of the judgment in Amylum, cited above ).