Judgment_paragraph 45 · Richie Ryan v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (T-121/97)

45The defendant considers that the reasoning given for Article 2 of Regulation No 840/95 is correct and sufficient. That reasoning derives, first and foremost, from the fact that Article 2 directly applies a parent provision, namely Article 18 of Regulation No 2290/77. It derives, secondly and indirectly, from the reason for the increase in salaries, decided upon in Article 1 of Regulation No 840/95, which resulted from the Court of Auditors' attaining the status of institution. The defendant refers in that regard to the settled case-law according to which the statement of reasons for a regulation may simply set out the general situation which led to its adoption, having regard to the regulation's context (Case 5/67 Beus v Hauptzollamt München [1968] ECR 83, at p. 95, and Case 80/72 Koninklijke Lassiefabrieken v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten [1973] ECR 635).