35The decisive test for a finding that this requirement has been satisfied is whether the institution concerned has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion (Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission, paragraph 33 above, paragraph 43; Holcim (Deutschland) v Commission, paragraph 31 above, paragraph 47; and Sison I, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 235). The determining factor in deciding whether there has been such an infringement is therefore the discretion available to the institution concerned (Case C-198/03 P Commission v CEVA and Pfizer [2005] ECR I-6357, paragraph 66 and case-law cited). It is apparent from the criteria of the case-law that, if the institution in question has only considerably reduced, or even no, discretion, the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach (Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission, paragraph 33 above, paragraph 44; Case C-312/00 P Commission v Camar and Tico [2002] ECR I-11355, paragraph 54; Case C-440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric [2009] ECR I-6413, paragraph 160; and Joined Cases T-198/95, T-171/96, T-230/97, T-174/98 and T-225/99 Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v Commission [2001] ECR II-1975, paragraph 134).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.