CURIA - Documents

7/25/2019 CURIA - Documents

1/11

25/05/2016, 2144CURIA - Documents

Page 1 of 11http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclangeIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=134283&occ=first&dir=&cid=579814

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)

27 February 2013 (*)

(Fisheries Conservation of fish stocks Recovery plan for bluefin tuna Measures prohibiting

fishing activities of purse seiners flying the flag of France or Greece Actions for annulment Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures Whether directly concerned Admissibility Rate of exhaustion of quotas per State and per purse seiner True catch capacity)

In Case T-367/10,

Bloufin Touna Ellas Naftiki Etaireia,established in Athens (Greece),

Chrisderic,established in Saint-Cyprien (France),

Andr Sbastien Fortassier,residing in Grau-dAgde (France),

represented initially by V. Akritidis and E. Petritsi, lawyers, and subsequently by V. Akritidis and F.Crespo, lawyers,

applicants,

v

European Commission,represented by K. Banks, A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents,

defendant,

ACTION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 498/2010 of 9 June 2010 prohibitingfishing activities for purse seiners flying the flag of France or Greece or registered in France orGreece, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 W, and in theMediterranean Sea (OJ 2010 L 142, p. 1),

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of S. Papasavvas, President, V. Vadapalas (Rapporteur) and K. OHiggins, Judges,

Registrar: C. Kristensen, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 14 November 2012,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1 The applicants, Bloufin Touna Ellas Naftiki Etaireia (the Greek applicant), Chrisderic and Mr
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=134283&occ=first&dir=&cid=579814#Footnote*


2/11



Andr Sbastien Fortassier (the French applicants), are owners of purse seiners named AIGAION,flying the Greek flag, CHRISDERIC II and VILLE DAGDE IV, both flying the French flag, whichare authorised to fish for bluefin tuna. As a result of the quotas allocated to European Union MemberStates by Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishingopportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EUvessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009 (OJ 2010 L 21, p. 1),

the Greek and French authorities allocated quotas for 2010 to the Greek applicant and the Frenchapplicants respectively.

2 On 15 April 2010, the applicants filed an application for authorisation of a joint fishing operation(JFO), in accordance with Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean,amending Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007 (OJ 2009 L96, p. 1). That JFO concerned the fishing of live bluefin tuna by the vessels AIGAION,CHRISDERIC II and VILLE DAGDE IV and covered the regulated fishing period of 16 May to 14June 2010.

3 On 21 and 30 April 2010, the French and Greek authorities sent their respective JFO applications tothe European Commission. On 12 May 2010, after the Hellenic Republic had amended its annualfishing plan because of the revision of AIGAIONs individual quota, the Commission notified theInternational Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (the ICCAT) of the five JFOsfor which applications had been submitted to it by Member States, including the applicants JFO.

4 By letter of 19 May 2010, the Greek authorities informed the Greek applicant that fishing activitiescould start on 23 May.

5 By application of Article 36(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009

establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the commonfisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004,(EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 andrepealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ 2009 L343, p. 1), on 9 June 2010, the Commission adopted Commission Regulation (EU) No 498/2010 of9 June 2010 prohibiting fishing activities for purse seiners flying the flag of France or Greece orregistered in France or Greece, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2010 L 142, p. 1; the contested regulation).

6 Article 1 of that regulation states as follows:

Fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 W, and the Mediterranean bypurse seiners flying the flag of or registered in France or Greece shall be prohibited as from 10 June2010, 00h00.

7 Furthermore, on 14 June 2010, the Commission, pursuant to Article 36(2) of Regulation No1224/2009, adopted Regulation (EU) No 508/2010 prohibiting fishing activities for purse seinersflying the flag of or registered in Spain, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic ocean, east oflongitude of 45 W, and in the Mediterranean sea (OJ 2010 L 149, p. 7).

8 Pursuant to Article 2 of that regulation:

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by purse seiners flying


3/11



the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date setout in that Annex.

9 The Annex to that regulation refers to 10 June 2010 as the date from which purse seine fishing forbluefin tuna by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain was also prohibited.

Procedure and forms of order sought by the parties

10 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 3 September 2010, the applicants brought thepresent action.

11 By way of measures of organisation of procedure, the Court sent a number of written questions tothe Commission, which replied within the period allowed.

12 The parties presented oral argument and replied to the questions put by the Court at the hearing on14 November 2012.

13 The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the contested regulation;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

14 The Commission contends that the Court should:

dismiss the action;

order the applicants to pay the costs.

Law

Admissibility

15 The Commission, without formally raising an objection as to admissibility, is of the opinion that,since the French Republic has transferred unused French purse seiner quotas to other segments of itsfleet, it is doubtful whether the French applicants still have an interest in the annulment of thecontested regulation.

16 The applicants claim that the contested regulation had a significant negative impact on them, whichproves their direct and individual concern and standing to bring these proceedings before the Court.Contrary to the Commissions claims in that regard, the fact that the French Republic revised its

fishing plan and exhausted its national quota does not have any bearing on the French applicantsinterest in the annulment of the contested regulation.

17 First of all, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263TFEU, any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and secondparagraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct andindividual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does

not entail implementing measures.

18 In the present case, the contested regulation is a regulatory act adopted by the Commission on the


4/11



basis of Article 36(2) of Regulation No 1224/2009, the provisions of which prohibit fishingactivities for purse seiners flying the flag of France or Greece or registered in France or Greece,fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 W, and in the Mediterranean Sea,with effect from 10 June 2010 at 00:00 hours.

19 It is therefore indisputable that the provisions of the contested regulation are addressed in abstractterms to an indeterminate number of persons and apply to objectively determined situations (see, to

that effect, Case C-213/91 Abertal and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-

3177, paragraph 19,and the order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-183/94 Cantina cooperativa fra produttorivitivinicoli di Torre di Mosto and Othersv Commission[1995] ECR II-1941, paragraph 51).

20 In addition, since the applicants activity is in fact fishing for bluefin tuna using purse seiners, theAIGAION, flying the flag of Greece and, the CHRISDERIC II and the VILLE DAGDE IV, flyingthat of France, they are directly concerned by the contested regulation.

21 Finally, the stopping of the fishing, which follows from the contested regulation, does not requireany implementing measure on the part of the Member States.

22 It follows that the contested regulation is a regulatory act which does not entail implementingmeasures and which directly concerns the applicants, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of

Article 263 TFEU. Those considerations are not, moreover, disputed by the parties.

23 The Commissions arguments calling into question whether the French applicants still have aninterest in the annulment of the contested regulation must therefore be rejected.

24 It suffices to note that, on the date that fishing for bluefin tuna was closed by that regulation, theFrench applicants had not used up the quota initially allocated to them. The quota initially allocatedto each French purse seiner was 51 tonnes and, when the fishing was closed, those applicants had

each caught 31.5 tonnes. Consequently, at that date they had used only 61.7% of their quota.

25 Furthermore, the Commissions pleadings show that, despite a transfer of 168 tonnes of unusedquota to other fleet segments, the French purse seiners did not use up the total of the quotas

allocated to them.

26 Thus, it must be held that the French purse seiners were not able to use their total quota because thecontested regulation prohibited fishing for bluefin tuna with effect from 10 June 2010.

27 It follows that, because of that prohibition, the quota initially allocated to the French applicants wassubstantially reduced. Accordingly, contrary to the Commissions submissions, the French

applicants standing to bring the action still exists.

28 Finally, with regard to the Greek applicants standing to bring the action, it suffices to say, as isapparent from paragraphs 34 and 42 below, that it is in a position identical to that of the Frenchapplicants, namely that it was unable to use the entirety of the quota allocated to it. Furthermore, the

Commission has not challenged the Greek applicants standing to bring the action.

29 The action is therefore admissible.

Substance

30 In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law, alleging, firstly, infringement ofthe principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, secondly, infringement of the principle of


5/11



proportionality and thirdly, infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty ofcare.

The first plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination

31 The applicants claim that the Commission carried out a discrimination on two grounds. Firstly, it

prohibited fishing operations for purse seiners flying the flag of Greece, Spain or France orregistered in those Member States (the Greek, Spanish and French seiners) on the same date,

before the end of the fishing period, whereas in fact the level of exhaustion of the Greek quota wasmuch lower than that of the Spanish quota. Secondly, although it informed the three Member Statesof the suspension of those fishing operations, the Commission published two different bindingtermination regulations, namely the contested regulation concerning Greek and French seiners andRegulation No 508/2010 concerning Spanish seiners. The latter regulation authorised, in practice,the Spanish fleet to fish until the end of the original fishing period, namely 14 June 2010, whichamounted to discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

The first part of the first plea in law, concerning the discrimination resulting from the stoppingof fishing activities on the same date for Greek, Spanish and French seiners

32 Respect for the principle of equality and non-discrimination requires that comparable situationsmust not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way

unless such treatment is objectively justified (see Case C-221/09 AJD Tuna [2011] ECR I-1655,paragraph 88 and the case-law cited).

33 The Court must examine whether the Commission, by deciding to stop fishing activities early, onthe same date, for the Greek, Spanish and French seiners, was guilty of discrimination within themeaning of the case-law cited in the preceding paragraph.

34 On 9 June 2010, the Commission sent three faxes to the administrations of the Member Statesconcerned stating that, as at 8 June 2010, the Greek, Spanish and French seiners had used 61.7%,

90.5% and 85.7% respectively of their quota and that, accordingly, the catch capacity of thosevessels was deemed to have been exhausted on 9 June 2010.

35 Although a clear difference between the percentage use of the quotas by the Spanish seiners and theGreek seiner can be seen from those percentages, it is clear that the Spanish seiners were able to fishmore bluefin tuna than the French seiners, those percentages give only an imperfect view of the truesituation. The Commission, in order to decide on stopping fishing operations, took account of therisk that the Member States would exceed the quota allocated to them, to wit 60 tonnes to theHellenic Republic, 803.9 tonnes to the Kingdom of Spain and 1 699 tonnes to the French Republicfor bluefin tuna fishing using purse seiners.

36 On 8 June 2010, then, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic stillhad remaining quotas of 23 tonnes, 76.1 tonnes and 243 tonnes respectively for fishing bluefin tunausing purse seiners. The Greek fleet comprises only one purse seiner, namely the AIGAION, theGreek applicants vessel, whereas the Spanish and French fleets have to share the quota allocated totheir Member States of origin between 6 and 16 purse seiners respectively.

37 According to the data received by the Commission, which is not disputed by the parties, the

AIGAION caught 37 tonnes of bluefin tuna in a single day, 6 June 2010, and the French applicantseach caught 31.5 tonnes on the same day. In their JFO, therefore, the applicants had caught 100


6/11



tonnes of bluefin tuna. On 6 June 2010, the Spanish fleet had caught 597 tonnes of bluefin tuna andthe French fleet as a whole had caught 1 107 tonnes.

38 The Commission determined the probable date of exhaustion of the quotas, on the basis of thosedata and the catch capacity of purse seiners and on the average catch rates of the European Unionpurse seiner fleet, as noted during the 2007, 2008 and 2009 fishing seasons, as 9 June 2010 for theGreek, Spanish and French seiners.

39 In that regard, even if the rate of exhaustion of the Greek, Spanish and French quotas was not the

same, it follows from the data supplied by the Commission and the calculations made by it that therewas a risk that the purse seiners would exceed the quota allocated to them, particularly as theremaining quotas, to wit 23 tonnes for the Greek seiner, 12.7 tonnes for each Spanish seiner and19.5 tonnes for each of the French applicants, as a theoretic average, were relatively low.

40 Furthermore, it must be accepted that, if the applicants were able to catch 100 tonnes in one day, itis likely that they would have been able to fish the remaining quota, namely 62 tonnes, in one day.The same reasoning applies to the catch capacities of the Spanish fleet or the French fleet, looked atas a whole.

41 Thus, the Commission did indeed take as its basis the actual capacity of the Greek, Spanish and

French seiners to catch bluefin tuna rather than their theoretical capacity to reach their catch quotafor its decision to close fishing operations (see, to that effect,AJD Tuna, paragraph 102).

42 In addition, it used a method of calculation based on objective criteria, namely the analysis of thedata available on 6 June 2010 and that of the data of the 2007, 2008 and 2009 fishing seasons. Thatmethod was applied in the same way to the Greek, Spanish and French seiners in order to determinethe date on which their quota would be exhausted.

43 Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the first part of the applicants first plea in law,alleging that the Commission was guilty of discrimination by stopping fishing for bluefin tuna on thesame date for the Greek, Spanish and French seiners, must be rejected.

The second part of the first plea in law, alleging discrimination as a result of the adoption ofthe contested regulation and of Regulation No 508/2010 on different dates

44 It must be ascertained, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 32 above, whether,in adopting the contested regulation and Regulation No 508/2010, the Commission is guilty ofdiscrimination by permitting the Spanish seiners to fish for longer than the applicants.

45 The contested regulation was adopted on 9 June 2010 and was published in the Official Journal ofthe European Unionon 10 June 2010, while Regulation No 508/2010 was adopted on 14 June 2010and was published in the Official Journal on 15 June 2010. Under Article 1 of the contestedregulation, fishing for bluefin tuna by purse seiners flying the flag of France or Greece or registered

in France or Greece is prohibited with effect from 10 June 2010. Pursuant to the annex toRegulation No 508/2010, fishing for bluefin tuna by Spanish purse seiners is also prohibited from 10June 2010.

46 First of all, the applicants arguments, set out in the reply, that there are contradictions between thedate on which the Spanish quota was deemed to be exhausted and the date on which fishing for

bluefin tuna was actually stopped in Regulation No 508/2010, must be rejected.

47 The Commission has stated that the date of exhaustion of the quotas, whether for the Greek,


7/11



Spanish or French seiners, was deemed to be 9 June 2010. Consequently, in the contested regulation,the Commission fixed 10 June 2010 at 00:00 as the date on which fishing for bluefin tuna wasprohibited for the Greek and French seiners. In Regulation No 508/2010, the date of the prohibitionis also 10 June 2010. The exact time at which the prohibition on fishing was to take effect is indeednot stated therein. However, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with Article 4(2) ofRegulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rulesapplicable to periods, dates and time limits (OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) P.

354 355), the taking effect of an act of the Commission fixed at a given date is to occur at thebeginning of the first hour of the day falling on that date. Consequently, as is the case of thecontested regulation, the prohibition of fishing of bluefin tuna by Spanish seiners was fixed byRegulation No 508/2010 on 10 June 2010 at 00:00.

48 Next, the applicants submit that they were subject to discrimination on the ground that RegulationNo 508/2010, which was adopted after the contested regulation, permitted the Spanish seiners, inpractice, to fish for a longer period than them.

49 Firstly, it must be noted that, as the Commission submits, notwithstanding the fact that Regulation

No 508/2010 was adopted only on 14 June 2010, the Spanish authorities decided to stop fishingoperations for bluefin tuna on 8 and 9 June 2010 and, consequently, the Spanish seiners did not, inpractice, fish for a longer period than the applicants.

50 In that regard, reference should be made to the faxes of 8 and 9 June 2010 sent by the Spanishauthorities to the Commission, informing it that fishing for bluefin tuna using purse seiners wouldcease for four of their vessels on 8 June 2010 at 17:00 and for their other two vessels on 9 June 2010at 09:00.

51 It follows that, contrary to the applicants assertions, the Spanish seiners did not have the benefit ofadditional fishing days but, on the contrary, ceased fishing a day earlier than the Greek and French

seiners since, according to the information supplied by the Spanish authorities, the last seiner ceasedfishing operations on 9 June 2010.

52 In support of their argument that the Spanish seiners fished for a longer period than them, theapplicants refer to the case of a Spanish vessel, the NUEVO ELORZ, which, according to theICCAT catch records, fished 10 341 kg of bluefin tuna on 10 June 2010. However, as is apparentfrom the rejoinder and the responses of the Commission to the questions put by the Court, that dateis an error by the ICCAT, since the real date on which the NUEVO ELORZ fished the 10 341 kg ofbluefin tuna in question was 5 June 2010 and not 10 June 2010.

53 Consequently, contrary to the applicants submissions, that Spanish seiner did not fish beyond 10June 2010. In addition, it must be noted that the applicants have adduced no evidence to show that

other Spanish seiners actually fished beyond that date.

54 Secondly, it must be noted that Regulation No 508/2010 merely provided confirmation of the factthat fishing for bluefin tuna by the Spanish seiners had stopped, as decided by the Spanishauthorities.

55 The Commission, in its defence, states that it informed all Member States, by fax of 11 June 2010,that Spain had decided independently to stop the fishing for bluefin tuna by seiners.

56 The applicants argue that that fax does not inform the Member States of the independent closing offishing for bluefin tuna by the Spanish seiners, but rather of the prohibition of fishing by theCommission addressed to the Kingdom of Spain. Moreover, they point to the contradictory conduct


8/11



of the Commission in adopting Regulation No 508/2010, when it has stated that it was not necessaryto publish such a regulation because Spain had already voluntarily proceeded to stop fishing by itspurse seiner fleet.

57 However, even if the applicants arguments were founded, that would not affect the present case.The applicants arguments seek, in essence, to challenge the lawfulness of Regulation No 508/2010to benefit from any unlawfulness established, in order to seek the annulment of the contested

regulation on the basis of infringement of the principle of non-discrimination.

58 Even if Regulation No 508/2010 were to contain inconsistencies, since it was adopted after thecontested regulation it has no effect on the lawfulness of that contested regulation.

59 It follows from all the foregoing that no Greek, Spanish or French seiner was authorised to fish oractually fished on 10 June 2010.

60 Consequently, although the Commission adopted the contested regulation and Regulation No508/2010 on different dates, that has not in practice caused any discrimination between Greek,Spanish and French seiners.

61 In the light of all the foregoing, the first plea must be dismissed.

The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality

62 The applicants submit that the Commission could have adopted more proportionate measures toensure compliance by Member States with the system introduced by Regulation No 1224/2009. TheCommission applied a disproportionate prohibition at a time when the level of exhaustion of thedifferent national quotas, in particular that of the Greek seiner, was much lower that that of theSpanish seiners, and where there was no real risk of exceeding those quotas, given their low levels

of use.

63 In that regard, the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of EuropeanUnion law, requires that measures implemented by provisions of European Union law areappropriate for attaining the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it

(AJD Tuna, paragraph 79 and the case-law cited).

64 According to settled case-law, the European Union legislature enjoys a wide discretionary power inmatters concerning agriculture, including fisheries, corresponding to the political responsibilitiesgiven to it by Articles 40 TFEU to 43 TFEU. Consequently, judicial review by the Court must belimited to verifying that the measure in question is not vitiated by any manifest error or misuse of

powers and that the authority concerned has not manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion(AJD Tuna, paragraph 80 and the case-law cited).

65 As regards judicial review of the implementation of that principle, bearing in mind the widediscretion enjoyed by the European Union legislature where the common agricultural policy,

including fisheries, is concerned, the lawfulness of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affectedonly if the measure is manifestly inappropriate in terms of the objective which the competentinstitution is seeking to pursue (AJD Tuna, paragraph 81 and the case-law cited).

66 It is therefore necessary for the Court to determine whether the prohibition on fishing bluefin tuna

with effect from 10 June 2010 by purse seiners was not manifestly inappropriate (see, by analogy,AJD Tuna, paragraph 82).


9/11



67 In that regard, the applicants arguments concerning the risk of exhaustion of their quota are similarto those put forward under the first plea in law alleging, in particular, that the Commission acted in adiscriminatory manner by deciding to stop the fishing from 10 June 2010.

68 As has been established in the examination of the first plea in law, the Commission decided to stopthe fishing for bluefin tuna from 10 June 2010 since, having regard to the data relating to catchesalready made by the purse seiners and the average catch rates of the European Union purse seiner

fleet observed during the 2007, 2008 and 2009 fishing seasons, there was a real risk that theEuropean Union vessels would exceed their quota.

69 The applicants also claim that there are a number of measures which make it possible effectively toavoid exceeding quotas, firstly, the presence of an ICCAT observer on each purse seiner; secondly,the fact that catches are live catches and even if the quota has been exceeded, extra catches can bethrown back to the waters in real time; and thirdly, the fact that the applicants were in a joint fishingoperation, fully monitored by the ICCAT observer and the Commission itself. At the hearing, theapplicants also referred to the 2011 and 2012 fishing seasons, during which the seiners fished 100%of their quota, without, however, exceeding it, to demonstrate that those different measures are

actually effective and are sufficient to avoid any risk of exceeding quotas.

70 With regard to the arguments relating to the 2011 and 2012 fishing seasons, even if founded theycannot be taken into consideration in the context of the present action. In accordance with settledcase-law, the lawfulness of an act liable to be subject to an action for annulment under Article 263TFEU must be assessed in the light of the facts and information available to the competent authority

at the time of adoption of that act (see judgment of 22 May 2012 in Case T-345/10 Portugal vCommission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 86 and the case-law cited).

71 As regards the applicants arguments as to the allegedly disproportionate nature of the measuresprohibiting fishing for bluefin tuna adopted by the Commission, the Court of Justice, in paragraph

83 of the judgment in AJD Tuna, stated that measures prohibiting fishing adopted by theCommission on the ground that exhaustion of the quotas was imminent were not manifestlyinappropriate. That assessment must be applied to the present case, since the Commission, by virtueof the precautionary principle, implemented measures which seemed to it the most appropriate inorder to avoid any risk of the quotas being exceeded.

72 Furthermore, although it cannot be excluded that the measures referred to by the applicants couldreduce the risk of the quotas being exceeded, the fact remains that, as the Commission points out inthe defence, those measures are not infallible, whereas stopping the fishing is the most reliablemethod of preventing the quotas from being exceeded.

73 In the light of all the foregoing, the second plea in law must be dismissed.

The third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty ofcare

74 Firstly, the applicants consider that the contested regulation infringes the duty of care and theprinciple of sound administration because the risk of exhaustion of the quotas is linked to theactivities of Spanish fishermen, who benefit from the highest quota in the European Union, and notto those of the Greek and French applicant fishermen.

75 In that regard, it must be pointed out that, irrespective of the fact that that argument is not at allclear, it must be placed, as the Commission has noted, without being contradicted by the applicants,


10/11


Page 10 of 11http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclaneIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=134283&occ=first&dir=&cid=579814

under the first part of the first plea in law in the present case, which has been rejected (see paragraph43 above). Consequently, that argument must be rejected on the same basis.

76 Secondly, the applicants consider that the Commission was slow to communicate information onthe JFO to the ICCAT, in contravention of the principle of sound administration in so far as thedelay complained of was unjustifiable and had the effect of preventing the applicants from carrying

out their fishing operations for a seven-day period.

77 The Commission is of the opinion that there was no breach of the principle of sound administration

since, in particular in respect of the notification of the JFO to the ICCAT, it had to wait for the Greekand French Governments to notify it of the JFO and for the necessary amendments to be made to thenational fishing plans. It adds that the delay in communication of the JFO to the ICCAT was causedby discrepancies between the information previously submitted by the Greek authorities and thatcontained in the notification of the applicants JFO which the Greek authorities sent to theCommission.

78 However, even if the applicants second argument were well founded, it would not lead to theannulment of the contested regulation and must therefore be rejected as ineffective.

79 According to the applicants, the delay in that communication entailed a delay to the start of the

fishing. That is irrelevant in the context of the examination of the present action, the object of whichis not to determine the date on which fishing started, but whether the prohibition on fishing was wellfounded. In that regard, it must be noted that, at the hearing, the applicants themselves accepted thatthose were two separate events.

80 Furthermore, the Commission fixed the date for prohibition of the fishing on the basis of the datarelating to the catches made since the start of the fishing, namely 16 May 2010, by all the Greek andFrench seiners, including the applicants. In that context, it is common ground that, if the seiners had

begun their fishing activities earlier because of more rapid communication of the JFO, they would, apriori, have reached their quota earlier and the fishing would also have been stopped earlier.

81 In the light of the foregoing, the third plea in law must be rejected and, consequently, the actionmust be dismissed in its entirety.

Costs

82 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the unsuccessful party is to be orderedto pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful partys pleadings. Since the applicants

have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to pay the Commissions costs, in accordance with theform of order sought by the Commission.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bloufin Touna Ellas Naftiki Etaireia, Chrisderic et Andr Sbastien Fortassier topay the costs.


11/11


Page 11 of 11http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclaneIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=134283&occ=first&dir=&cid=579814

Papasavvas Vadapalas OHiggins

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 27 February 2013.

[Signatures]

*Language of the case: English.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=134283&occ=first&dir=&cid=579814#Footref*