Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2004-09-09
23. Furthermore, to the extent that, by the first part of its first plea in law the Spanish Government seeks to dispute the need for the contested measures by questioning their effectiveness, it must be stated that the Commission enjoys a considerable power of discretion in circumstances such as those of the present case where it is necessary to evaluate both a complex situation and the nature or scope of the measures to be taken.  Accordingly, 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, in particular, Case C-4/96 NIFPO and Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation  [1998] ECR I-681, paragraphs 41 and 42; Case C-179/95 Spain  v Council  [1999] ECR I-6475, paragraph 29, and Case C-120/99 Italy  v Council  [2001] ECR I-7997, paragraph 44).
31. Firstly, in that regard, the principle of equal treatment or non-discrimination requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified.
50. In this regard, the Court observes that, although it is settled case-law that the statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the measure 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-120/99 Italy  v Council , cited above, paragraph 28, and Case C‑445/00 Austria  v Council  [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 49), it is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law.  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.  This is a fortiori  the case where the Member States have been closely associated with the process of drafting the contested measure and are thus aware of the reasons underlying that measure (see, inter alia, Case C-120/99 Italy  v Council , cited above, paragraph 29, Case C‑445/00 Austria  v Council , cited above, paragraph 99 and Case C-293/00 Netherlands  v Commission  [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 55 and 56).
51. Furthermore, it is also clear that the Court has consistently held that the scope of the obligation to state reasons depends on the nature of the measure in question and that, in the case of measures of general application, the statement of reasons may be confined to indicating the general situation which led to its adoption, on the one hand, and the general objectives which it is intended to achieve, on the other.  In that context, the Court has ruled in particular that if the contested measure clearly discloses the essential objective pursued by the institution, it would be excessive to require a specific statement of reasons for the various technical choices made (see, inter alia, Case C-168/98 Luxembourg  v Parliament and Council  [2000] ECR I-9131, paragraph 62 and Case C-361/01 P Kik  [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 102).