# C_2016200EN.01002801.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/28

---

Action brought on 8 April 2016 — Acerga v Council

(Case T-153/16)

(2016/C 200/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Asociación de armadores de cerco de Galicia (Acerga) (Sada, Spain) (represented by: B. Huarte Melgar, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/458 of 30 March 2016 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/72 as regards certain fishing opportunities; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/458 of 30 March 2016 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/72 as regards certain fishing opportunities;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of relative stability.
  In that regard, it is submitted that, since the same percentages for the allocation of fishing opportunities apply, account is not being taken of those regions of the Member States which joined the EEC after 1981, where local populations are (and were at that time) highly dependent on fisheries. As a consequence, the objective of relative stability itself is not being achieved. Furthermore, even assuming that that allocation key is fixed, it is submitted that those percentages have changed over the years, and as such the relative stability criterion has not been satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of relative stability.

In that regard, it is submitted that, since the same percentages for the allocation of fishing opportunities apply, account is not being taken of those regions of the Member States which joined the EEC after 1981, where local populations are (and were at that time) highly dependent on fisheries. As a consequence, the objective of relative stability itself is not being achieved. Furthermore, even assuming that that allocation key is fixed, it is submitted that those percentages have changed over the years, and as such the relative stability criterion has not been satisfied.

| 2. | Second plea in law, based on the failure to have regard to the objective of generating economic and social benefits and creating jobs, laid down in the first paragraph of Article 2(2) of the CFP 2013, in that Spanish regions where local populations are highly dependent on fisheries were not taken into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, based on the failure to have regard to the objective of generating economic and social benefits and creating jobs, laid down in the first paragraph of Article 2(2) of the CFP 2013, in that Spanish regions where local populations are highly dependent on fisheries were not taken into consideration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that the contested provision applies relative stability differently to comparable situations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that the contested provision applies relative stability differently to comparable situations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of solidarity, laid down in Article 3 TFEU.
  In that regard, it is submitted that both the allocation of national fishing quotas (based on relative stability), under Regulation (EU) 2016/72, and the instrumental measures for controlling fishing effort are not applied to the same extent in all Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of solidarity, laid down in Article 3 TFEU.

In that regard, it is submitted that both the allocation of national fishing quotas (based on relative stability), under Regulation (EU) 2016/72, and the instrumental measures for controlling fishing effort are not applied to the same extent in all Member States.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of an open market economy with free competition and the fundamental freedom of the European Union of movement of capital.
  In that regard, it is submitted that there is no mention in Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of the possibility of exchanging fishing quotas through tradable fishing rights between undertakings or producer organisations in the Member States of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of an open market economy with free competition and the fundamental freedom of the European Union of movement of capital.

In that regard, it is submitted that there is no mention in Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of the possibility of exchanging fishing quotas through tradable fishing rights between undertakings or producer organisations in the Member States of the EU.

---