Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union.
Date: 2017-01-11
46


As regards, first of all, the Council’s allegedly exceeding the bounds of its discretion, it should first be borne in mind that when it is fixing TACs and allocating fishing opportunities among the Member States, the Council has to evaluate a complex economic situation. In such circumstances, the Council’s discretion is not limited to the nature and scope of the measures to be taken but extends, to some degree, to the finding of the basic facts. In reviewing the exercise of such a power, the Court must confine itself to examining whether there has been a manifest error or misuse of power or whether the authority in question has clearly exceeded the bounds of its discretion (see to that effect, judgments of 19 February 1998, NIFPO and Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation, C‑4/96, EU:C:1998:67, paragraphs 41 and 42; 5 October 1999, Spain v Council, C‑179/95, EU:C:1999:476, paragraph 29; and 9 September 2004, Spain v Commission, C‑304/01, EU:C:2004:495, paragraph 23).
50


The Court has, moreover, held in relation to a similar obligation under Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983 L 24, p. 1), that fishery conservation measures need not be completely consistent with the scientific advice and the absence of such advice or the fact that it is inconclusive cannot prevent the Council from adopting such measures as it deems necessary for achieving the objectives of the CFP (see, by analogy, judgment in Mondiet, C‑405/92, EU:C:1993:906, paragraph 31).
57


It follows from the foregoing that the aim of the national quotas scheme consists in ensuring that each Member State has an equitable share of the established TAC, determined essentially on the basis of catches from which traditional fishing activities, the local populations that are especially dependent on fisheries and related industries of that Member State benefited before the quota scheme was established (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 December 1989, Agegate, C‑3/87, EU:C:1989:650, paragraph 24).
71


It should be borne in mind that the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of EU law, requires that acts adopted by EU institutions do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation in question; where there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued (see, inter alia, judgment of 14 November 2013, SFIR and Others, C‑187/12 to C‑189/12, EU:C:2013:737, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).
72


According to settled case-law, as regards judicial review of the implementation of that principle, bearing in mind the wide discretion enjoyed by the European Union legislature where the common fisheries policy is concerned, the lawfulness of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate in terms of the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue. What must be ascertained is therefore not whether the measure adopted by the legislature was the only one or the best one possible but whether it was manifestly inappropriate (see, in regards to the common agricultural policy, judgment of 14 November 2013, SFIR and Others, C‑187/12 to C‑189/12, EU:C:2013:737, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).
80


Regarding the principle of equal treatment, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the second subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU, which prohibits all discrimination in the context of the common agricultural and fisheries policy, is merely a specific expression of the general principle of equal treatment, which requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 November 2013, SFIR and Others, C‑187/12 to C‑189/12, EU:C:2013:737, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).