# C_2022472EN.01004201.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/42

---

Action brought on 15 September 2022 — ClientEarth v Council

(Case T-577/22)

(2022/C 472/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Ziegler, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision dated 5 July 2022 of the Council of the European Union (SGS 22/00149) in relation to the request for internal review under Title IV of the Aarhus Regulation in relation to Council Regulation (EU) 2022/109 of 27 January 2022 fixing for 2022 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in Union waters and for Union fishing vessels in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 21 of 27 January 2022, p. 1), and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision dated 5 July 2022 of the Council of the European Union (SGS 22/00149) in relation to the request for internal review under Title IV of the Aarhus Regulation in relation to Council Regulation (EU) 2022/109 of 27 January 2022 fixing for 2022 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in Union waters and for Union fishing vessels in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 21 of 27 January 2022, p. 1), and

| — | order the Council to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of law and of assessment as regards the scope of the applicant’s access to review rights under the Aarhus Regulation, due to the Council having:






  — | refused to review the Provisional TACs later replaced by final EU/UK TACs, even though the applicant retains an interest in their review; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of law and of assessment as regards the scope of the applicant’s access to review rights under the Aarhus Regulation, due to the Council having:

—

refused to review the Provisional TACs later replaced by final EU/UK TACs, even though the applicant retains an interest in their review; and

| — | found that the applicant’s pleas that the Council lacked competence and misused its powers in adopting the TAC Regulation were inadmissible for falling outside the scope of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

found that the applicant’s pleas that the Council lacked competence and misused its powers in adopting the TAC Regulation were inadmissible for falling outside the scope of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of law and of assessment as regards essential elements of secondary law and the scope of the Council’s competence to set TACs under Article 43(3) TFEU, due to the Council having committed:






  — | manifest errors of law as regards the margin of discretion it has to set fishing opportunities; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of law and of assessment as regards essential elements of secondary law and the scope of the Council’s competence to set TACs under Article 43(3) TFEU, due to the Council having committed:

—

manifest errors of law as regards the margin of discretion it has to set fishing opportunities; and

| — | manifest errors of law and of assessment regarding the limits of its competence under Article 43(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

manifest errors of law and of assessment regarding the limits of its competence under Article 43(3) TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment regarding the Council’s obligations to:






  — | not exceed the MSY exploitation rate after 2020 for all stocks, as required by Article 2(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment regarding the Council’s obligations to:

—

not exceed the MSY exploitation rate after 2020 for all stocks, as required by Article 2(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation;

| — | implement the precautionary approach, as commanded by the first and second subparagraphs of Article 2(2), Articles 4(1)(8) and 9(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation, and strictly limited by the MSY Objective; |
| --- | --- |

—

implement the precautionary approach, as commanded by the first and second subparagraphs of Article 2(2), Articles 4(1)(8) and 9(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation, and strictly limited by the MSY Objective;

| — | implement the ecosystem-based approach as required by Article 2(3) of the CFP Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

implement the ecosystem-based approach as required by Article 2(3) of the CFP Basic Regulation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the misuse of powers committed by the Council when adopting Council Regulation (EU) 2022/109 of 27 January 2022 fixing for 2022 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in Union waters and for Union fishing vessels in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 21 of 27 January 2022, p. 1). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the misuse of powers committed by the Council when adopting Council Regulation (EU) 2022/109 of 27 January 2022 fixing for 2022 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in Union waters and for Union fishing vessels in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 21 of 27 January 2022, p. 1).

---