Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.
Date: 2015-05-05
39. According to settled case-law, the choice of the legal basis for a European Union measure must rest on objective factors amenable to judicial review, which include in particular the aim and content of the measure (judgments in Commission  v Council , C‑377/12, EU:C:2014:1903, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited, and United Kingdom v Council , C‑81/13, EU:C:2014:2449, paragraph 35).
40. It should be borne in mind that the first paragraph of Article 118 TFEU enables the EU legislature to establish measures for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the Union. That provision, inserted into the FEU Treaty by the Treaty of Lisbon, specifically refers to the establishment and functioning of the internal market, which falls within an area where the European Union has shared competence under Article 4 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment in Spain and Italy  v Council , C‑274/11 and C‑295/11, EU:C:2013:240, paragraphs 16 to 26).
41. The Court has also held, with regard to the expression ‘throughout the Union’ used in that provision, that, since the power conferred by that article is exercised within the ambit of enhanced cooperation, the European intellectual property right so created and the uniform protection given by it must be in force, not in the Union in its entirety, but only in the territory of the participating Member States (see, to that effect, judgment in Spain and Italy  v Council , C‑274/11 and C‑295/11, EU:C:2013:240, paragraphs 67 and 68).
56. According to settled case-law, a measure is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken solely, or at the very least chiefly, for ends other than those for which the power in question was conferred or with the aim of evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the FEU Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case (judgments in Fedesa and Others , C‑331/88, EU:C:1990:391, paragraph 24, and Spain and Italy  v Council , C‑274/11 and C‑295/11, EU:C:2013:240, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
62. In the alternative, if the Court should find that Article 291(2) TFEU has not been infringed, the Kingdom of Spain claims that the delegation of the power in question does not meet the conditions laid down in the judgment in Meroni  v High Authority  (9/56, EU:C:1958:7), as confirmed by the judgments in Romano  (98/80, EU:C:1981:104), Tralli v ECB  (C‑301/02 P, EU:C:2005:306) and United Kingdom  v Parliament and Council (C‑270/12, EU:C:2014:18).
84. Secondly, it is necessary to examine the argument alleging infringement of the principles laid down in the judgment in Meroni  v High Authority  (9/56, EU:C:1958:7) which is relied on in support of the fourth and fifth pleas in law. In that case-law, the Court held, inter alia, that the delegation by an EU institution to a private entity of a discretionary power implying a wide margin of discretion and capable, according to the use which is made of it, of making possible the execution of actual economic policy, is not compatible with the requirements of the FEU Treaty (see, to that effect, judgments in Meroni  v High Authority , 9/56, EU:C:1958:7, pp. 151, 152 and 154, and United Kingdom  v Parliament and Council , C‑270/12, EU:C:2014:18, paragraphs 41 and 42).
102. Nor do the Courts of the European Union have jurisdiction in such an action to rule on the lawfulness of a measure adopted by a national authority (see, to that effect, judgment in Liivimaa Lihaveis , C‑562/12, EU:C:2014:2229, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).
105. According to the Court’s case-law, the direct application of a regulation, provided for in the second paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure of reception into national law, unless the regulation in question leaves it to the Member States themselves to adopt the necessary legislative, regulatory, administrative and financial measures to ensure the application of the provisions of that regulation (see judgments in Bussone , 31/78, EU:C:1978:217, paragraph 32, and ANAFE , C‑606/10, EU:C:2012:348, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).