# C_2013147EN.01002901.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/29 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 21 March 2013 — Pesquerias Riveirenses and others v Council

(Case T-180/13)

2013/C 147/52

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Pesquerias Riveirenses, SL (Ribeira, Spain); Pesquerias Campo de Marte, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Anpajo, SL (Ribeira); Arrastreros del Barbanza, SA (Ribeira); Martínez Pardavila e Hijos, SL (Ribeira); Lijo Pesca, SL (Ribeira); Frigoríficos Hermanos Vidal, SA (Ribeira); Pesquera Boteira, SL (Ribeira); Francisco Mariño Mos y Otros, CB (Ribeira); Juan Antonio Pérez Vidal y Hermano, CB (Ribeira); Marina Nalda, SL (Ribeira); Portillo y Otros, SL (Ribeira); Vidiña Pesca, SL (Ribeira); Pesca Hermo, SL (Ribeira); Pescados Oubiña Perez, SL (Ribeira); Manuel Pena Graña (Ribeira); Campo Eder, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Laga, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Jalisco, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Jopitos, SL (Ribeira); y Pesca-Julimar, SL (Ribeira) (represented by: J. Tojeiro Sierto, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | The applicants claim that the General Court should annul Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 in so far as it amalgamates the northern and southern components of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic in order to establish the TAC (total allowable catch) for blue whiting set out in Annexes IA and IB (pages 84 and 103, respectively; OJ 2013 L 23, p. 54). |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39 TFEU
—
It is claimed in this regard that Article 39 TFEU incorporates, as one of the objectives of the common agricultural and fisheries policy, the rational management of resources, and that the contested regulation infringes that provision inasmuch as, in failing to distinguish between the northern and southern components of the stock of blue whiting in the north Atlantic, it does not reflect what must be understood as a rational management of resources. The applicants do not dispute that the situation in the northern component requires restrictive fisheries management measures, but that is not the case in the southern component, the species of which are not overfished. Such an approach also entails an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, which requires, according to settled case-law of the CJEU, comparable situations not to be treated differently and different situations not to be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified. | — | It is claimed in this regard that Article 39 TFEU incorporates, as one of the objectives of the common agricultural and fisheries policy, the rational management of resources, and that the contested regulation infringes that provision inasmuch as, in failing to distinguish between the northern and southern components of the stock of blue whiting in the north Atlantic, it does not reflect what must be understood as a rational management of resources. The applicants do not dispute that the situation in the northern component requires restrictive fisheries management measures, but that is not the case in the southern component, the species of which are not overfished. Such an approach also entails an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, which requires, according to settled case-law of the CJEU, comparable situations not to be treated differently and different situations not to be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | It is claimed in this regard that Article 39 TFEU incorporates, as one of the objectives of the common agricultural and fisheries policy, the rational management of resources, and that the contested regulation infringes that provision inasmuch as, in failing to distinguish between the northern and southern components of the stock of blue whiting in the north Atlantic, it does not reflect what must be understood as a rational management of resources. The applicants do not dispute that the situation in the northern component requires restrictive fisheries management measures, but that is not the case in the southern component, the species of which are not overfished. Such an approach also entails an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, which requires, according to settled case-law of the CJEU, comparable situations not to be treated differently and different situations not to be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 and Article 6 of the New York Agreement of 1995
—
It is claimed in this regard that Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, establishes the precautionary approach as the guiding approach for the adoption of measures for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources; and that the same principle governs Article 6 of the ‘Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks’ (New York, 1995; OJ 1998 L 189, p. 14), to which the EU, and its then Member States, acceded on 19.12.2003, and which entered into force on 18.1.2004. The applicants claim that the management of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic under the contested regulation, by failing to distinguish between the northern and southern components of stock, imposes such a drastic and indiscriminate catch-reduction in the southern component as to generate a ‘risk’ that would have required the application of the precautionary approach. | — | It is claimed in this regard that Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, establishes the precautionary approach as the guiding approach for the adoption of measures for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources; and that the same principle governs Article 6 of the ‘Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks’ (New York, 1995; OJ 1998 L 189, p. 14), to which the EU, and its then Member States, acceded on 19.12.2003, and which entered into force on 18.1.2004. The applicants claim that the management of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic under the contested regulation, by failing to distinguish between the northern and southern components of stock, imposes such a drastic and indiscriminate catch-reduction in the southern component as to generate a ‘risk’ that would have required the application of the precautionary approach. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | It is claimed in this regard that Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, establishes the precautionary approach as the guiding approach for the adoption of measures for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources; and that the same principle governs Article 6 of the ‘Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks’ (New York, 1995; OJ 1998 L 189, p. 14), to which the EU, and its then Member States, acceded on 19.12.2003, and which entered into force on 18.1.2004. The applicants claim that the management of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic under the contested regulation, by failing to distinguish between the northern and southern components of stock, imposes such a drastic and indiscriminate catch-reduction in the southern component as to generate a ‘risk’ that would have required the application of the precautionary approach. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality
—
The applicants claim in this regard that the EU’s management of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic for the year 2013 (contested Council Regulation), inasmuch as it fails to distinguish between the northern and southern components, imposes on the southern component traumatic measures (reduction of TAC) that go beyond that which is necessary to achieve the objective sought (recovery of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic) and, therefore, infringes the principle of proportionality. | — | The applicants claim in this regard that the EU’s management of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic for the year 2013 (contested Council Regulation), inasmuch as it fails to distinguish between the northern and southern components, imposes on the southern component traumatic measures (reduction of TAC) that go beyond that which is necessary to achieve the objective sought (recovery of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic) and, therefore, infringes the principle of proportionality. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants claim in this regard that the EU’s management of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic for the year 2013 (contested Council Regulation), inasmuch as it fails to distinguish between the northern and southern components, imposes on the southern component traumatic measures (reduction of TAC) that go beyond that which is necessary to achieve the objective sought (recovery of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic) and, therefore, infringes the principle of proportionality. | | |

---