Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2005-11-24
19. The Italian Republic claims that the Court should:
– annul the contested letter of 29 July 2003 and all the measures connected with and preliminary to it;
– order the Commission to pay the costs.
25. It must be found that, as a result of the annulment of the contested letter of 20 January and 3 March 2003, the applicant obtained the only result that its action could have secured for it, so that nothing remains on which the Court can give a decision. In proceedings under Article 230 EC, the Court can do no more than annul the measure at issue (order of 8 March 1993 in Case C-123/92 Lezzi Pietro  v Commission  [1993] ECR I-809, paragraph 10).
32. According to settled case-law, an action for annulment is available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects (Case 22/70 Commission  v Council  [1971] ECR 263, paragraph 42, and Case C-325/91 France  v Commission  [1993] ECR I-3283, paragraph 9).
35. Whether the Commission’s argument is well founded must therefore be determined together with the substantive issues raised by the dispute (see, to that effect, Case C-57/95 France  v Commission  [1997] ECR I-1627, paragraphs 9 and 10).
37. Thus, given that the contested letter of 14 May 2003 is not merely confirmatory of the interpretative memorandum, it must be regarded as the definitive outcome of a reconsideration of the situation (see, to that effect, Case 54/77 Herpels  v Commission  [1978] ECR 585, paragraph 14).
54. It is settled case-law that the statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community Court to exercise its power of review (see inter alia Case C-445/00 Austria  v Council  [2003] ECR I-8549, paragraph 49, and Case C-304/01 Spain  v Commission  [2004] ECR I-7655, paragraph 50).
55. That requirement must be appraised by reference to the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC 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 Case C-17/99 France  v Commission  [2001] ECR I-2481, paragraph 36, and Case C-310/99 Italy  v Commission  [2002] ECR I-2289, paragraph 48).
64. According to settled case-law, an action brought subsequently to another which is between the same parties, is brought on the basis of the same submissions and seeks annulment of the same legal measure must be dismissed as inadmissible on the ground of lis pendens (see, in particular, Joined Cases 358/85 and 51/86 France  v Parliament  [1988] ECR 4821, paragraph 12).