Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2005-12-15
42. In any event, even assuming that sending the draft minutes of the meeting of 10 July 2002 to the national delegations three days after the adoption of the contested decision constitutes a procedural irregularity, an irregularity of that nature would not entail the annulment of that decision, in so far as it is not established that, were it not for that irregularity, that decision, which was adopted in conformity with the decision delivered by the committee, could have led to a different result (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02 Germany and Denmark  v Commission [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 37).
66. In any event, the contested decision was adopted in conformity with the opinion of the advisory committee so that the Community judicature cannot, save in the event of manifest error of fact or law or misuse of power, find fault with such a decision (see, to that effect, Case 216/82 Universität Hamburg  [1983] ECR 2771, paragraph 14). However, proof of such an error or misuse of power has not been provided.
71. Any trader to whom an institution has given justified hopes may rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. Further, there is nothing to prevent a Member State from claiming in an action for annulment that an act of the institutions frustrates the legitimate expectations of particular traders (Case C‑342/03 Spain  v Council [2005] ECR I-1975, paragraph 47).
72. However, it cannot be accepted that a communication submitted by the Commission together with a draft directive, even where that communication is mentioned in the recitals in the preamble to that directive, gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the policies contained in it would be adhered to, where it is clear from Article 189a of the EC Treaty (now Article 250 EC) and Article 189c of the EC Treaty that the Commission may amend such a proposal at any time and that the Council may adopt an act constituting an amendment to the proposal (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-13/92 to C-16/92 Driessen and Others  [1993] ECR I-4751, paragraph 33), which is in fact the position in this case as regards the conditions in which a derogation may be authorised for the use of heavy fuel oils with a content of more than 1% by mass.
87. In accordance with the case-law of the Court (see, in particular, Case C-110/03 Belgium  v Commission  [2005] ECR I-2801, paragraph 61), a breach of the principle of proportionality presupposes that the Community measure imposes on those to whom it is addressed an obligation which goes further than is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the aim pursued by that measure.
88. Furthermore, in view of the need to strike a balance between certain of the objectives and principles mentioned in Article 130r of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 174 EC), the Directive, having paragraph 1 of Article 130s of the Treaty as its legal basis (which was intended to achieve the objectives of Article 130r), and in view of the complexity of implementing the criteria which the Community legislature must observe in conducting environmental policy, review by the Court must necessarily be limited to the question whether the Council, by adopting the Directive, committed a manifest error of appraisal (see, to that effect, Case C-284/95 Safety Hi-Tech  [1998] ECR I-4301, paragraph 37).
96. The importance of the objectives pursued is such as to justify even substantial negative financial consequences for certain operators (see, to that effect, Case C‑331/88 Fedesa and Others  [1990] ECR I-4023, paragraph 17, and Case C‑183/95 Affish  [1997] ECR I-4315, paragraph 42), a fortiori, since the protection of the environment constitutes one of the essential objectives of the Community (see, in particular, Case C-176/03 Commission  v Council [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 41, and Case C-320/03 Commission  v Austria [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 72).