EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 61999CJ0100

Резюме на решението

Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Agrimonetary system for the euro - Transitional measures for the introduction of the euro in the common agricultural policy - Evaluation of a complex economic situation - Council's freedom of discretion - Lawfulness - Judicial review - Limits

(Council Regulation No 2800/98, Art. 2)

2. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope

(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC)

Summary

1. Where evaluation of a complex economic situation is required, as is the case in the context of the agrimonetary system for the euro, the Community legislature enjoys significant freedom of discretion and the Community judicature, in reviewing the lawfulness of the exercise of such freedom, cannot substitute its evaluation of the matter for that of the competent authority, but must confine itself to examining whether there has been a manifest error or misuse of power or whether that authority has clearly exceeded the bounds of its discretion.

( see para. 36 )

2. While it is true that the statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC) must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the Community authority which adopted the contested measure so as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for it and to enable the Court to exercise judicial review, the authority is not required to go into every relevant point of fact and law. More particularly, it is not possible to require that the statement of reasons should set out the various facts, often very numerous and complex, on the basis of which a regulation was adopted, or a fortiori that it should provide a more or less complete evaluation of those facts.

Furthermore, the question whether a statement of reasons satisfies the requirements must be assessed with reference not only to the wording of the impugned measure but also to its context and to the whole body of legal rules governing the matter in question. Consequently, 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 each of the technical choices made by the institution.

( see paras 63-64 )

Top