Order — ECLI:EU:C:2000:567
Date: 2000-10-12
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy
Concepts: Application for interim measures: suspension of operation of the contested measure and other interim measures;Appeals
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Application to intervene - decision unnecessary;Application for interim measures
Origin: Spain

summary 
because the proceedings for interim relief are by nature urgent, and the question 
I-8813 
ORDER OF 12. 10. 2000 — CASE C-300/00 P(R) 
of admissibility can be considered only on the basis of the facts adduced by the 
applicant. However, the decision of the judge hearing an application for interim 
relief does not prejudge the decision to be made by the Court of First Instance on 
hearing the main action. 
36 For the applicant to be regarded as individually concerned, his legal position must 
be affected by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to him or by reason 
of circumstances in which he is differentiated from all other persons and which 
distinguish him individually just as in the case of a person to whom a decision is 
addressed (see Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, and Case 
C-309/89 Codorniu v Council [1994] ECR I-1853, paragraph 20). 
37 In the present case, first of all, as regards the applicants' argument that the 
validity of Regulation N o 2742/1999 cannot be submitted to the Court of Justice 
for assessment otherwise than by means of a direct application for annulment, it 
must be observed that such a circumstance, even assuming it to be established, 
cannot constitute authority for changing the system of remedies and procedures 
established by Articles 230 EC, 234 EC and 235 EC, which is designed to give the 
Court of Justice the power to review the legality of acts of the institutions. In no 
case can such a circumstance allow an action for annulment brought by a natural 
or legal person which does not satisfy the conditions laid down by the fourth 
paragraph of Article 230 EC to be declared admissible (see the orders in Case 
C-10/95 P Asocarne v Council [1995] ECR I-4149, paragraph 26, and in Case 
C-87/95 P CNPAAP v Council [1996] ECR I-2003, paragraph 38). 
38 Second, as regards the argument concerning the obligation, said to arise from 
Articles 2 and 4(2) of Regulation No 3760/92, to take account of the applicants' 
particular situation, it must be observed that, as the President of the Court of First 
Instance rightly pointed out, the sole purpose of those provisions is to establish 
the framework within which the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, 
may adopt Community measures laying down the conditions of access to waters 
and resources and of the pursuit of exploitation activities so that the said 
provisions apply only in a general way to operators in the fisheries sector. 
I - 8814 
FEDERACIÓN DE COFRADÍAS DE PESCADORES DE GUIPÚZCO AND OTHERS V COUNCIL 
39 The result would be the same even if it were shown that the Council was aware of 
the applicants' particular situation. It would be contrary to the wording and spirit 
of the fourth paragraph of the Article 230 EC to allow any individual, where he 
has participated in the preparation of a legislative measure, subsequently to bring 
an action against that measure (see the order in Case C-10/95 P, cited above, 
paragraph 40). A fortiori, mere knowledge, on the part of the author of a 
measure, of the particular situation of a person affected by the consequences of 
adoption of the measure is not sufficient to differentiate that person from all 
other persons for the purpose of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. 
40 Third, with regard to the submissions concerning the particular effect of the 
contested measure on the applicants' situation, they dispute the statement in 
paragraph 33 of the order appealed against that French and Portuguese anchovy 
fishermen in the zone in question are also affected, and even mainly affected, by 
the contested provision. The applicants stress the serious economic and 
environmental consequences of the provision for them. They contend that it 
affects only two groups: those who benefit from the transfer of quotas (French 
owners) and those who do not. The second group consists of Spanish owners 
only. 
41 In this connection, it must be observed that the economic and environmental 
consequences which the applicants claim they suffer by reason of the contested 
provision are not, in themselves, sufficient to differentiate them from all other 
persons with reference to Regulation No 2742/1999. The order appealed against 
does not make a finding as to such consequences, but merely states that owners of 
vessels of other Member States are also affected by the contested provision. 
42 In the present case, the President of the Court of First Instance did not err in law 
when he found, in paragraph 33 of the order, that not only Spanish owners were 
affected by the contested provision. For example, some Portuguese operators are 
I- 8815 
ORDER OF 12.10. 2000 — CASE C-300/00 P(R) 
also affected by the exchange of quotas in so far as they cannot fish in ICES zones 
IX and X, CECAF area 34.1.1. 
43 Fourth, as regards the argument concerning the existence of a limited class of 
operators particularly affected by the contested provision, the applicants dispute, 
essentially, the finding by the President of the Court of First Instance that Spanish 
fishermen holding a licence for anchovy fishing in ICES zone VIII constitute a 
group the composition of which is variable, and not a limited, closed class. 
44 On this point it must be observed, first, that this finding is part of the factual 
assessment by the President of the Court of First Instance and it cannot be directly 
questioned in the context of an appeal. The applicants have adduced no specific 
legal argument, but merely try to show that the group was de facto final and 
absolute and that its composition is very stable. 
45 Second, as the Council correctly observes, whether the category of persons 
affected by a measure is open or closed can, in principle, be determined only at 
the time when the measure is adopted, and not at a later date, for example, when 
an action is brought for the annulment of the measure or on an appeal. 
46 Finally, it has consistently been held that, for the purpose of the admissibility of 
an application for the annulment of a measure, an individual may be regarded as 
individually concerned as a member of a limited class of traders only if the 
institution originating the measure had an obligation to take account of the 
particular situation of those traders when adopting the measure (see the 
judgments in Case 11/82, cited above, paragraph 31; Case C-152/88, cited 
I-8816 
FEDERACIÓN DE COFRADÍAS DE PESCADORES DE GUIPÚZCO AND OTHERS V COUNCIL 
above, paragraph 11; Case C-209/94 P Buralux and Others v Council [1996] 
ECR I-615, paragraphs 33 and 34, and Case C-390/95 P, cited above, para­
graphs 25 to 30). However, as paragraph 38 of the present order makes clear, the 
provisions relied upon by the applicants in this connection apply only in a general 
way to operators in the fisheries sector. 
47 In those circumstances, the conclusion that the applicants have not proved the 
existence of a limited class of operators of which they form part as an element 
differentiating them from all other persons by reference to Regulation 
No 2742/1999 is not mistaken in law. 
48 It follows from the foregoing that there was no error in law on the part of the 
President of the Court of First Instance in finding that the application for interim 
relief was inadmissible so far as the 59 owners were concerned. 
49 With regard to the three associations, it is sufficient to observe that the President 
correctly found in law that an action for annulment brought by them on behalf of 
their members was inadmissible because the latter could not bring individual 
actions. 
50 For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that the applicants' plea in law in 
support of their appeal cannot succeed and consequently the appeal must be 
dismissed. 
51 With regard to the applications to intervene, lodged in the framework of the 
appeal, it must be observed that the prospective interveners plead an interest 
connected with the action on the merits. In those circumstances, in view of the 
I - 8817 
ORDER OF 12. 10. 2000 — CASE C-300/00 P(R) 
characteristics of the present proceedings, those applications should be con­
sidered only if the appeal is allowed in relation to the admissibility of the 
application to suspend the operation of the contested provision. 
52 Consequently, as the order declaring the application for interim relief to be 
inadmissible has been definitively upheld, it is unnecessary to rule on the 
applications for leave to intervene in support of the applicants, submitted, on the 
one hand, by the Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and, on the other hand, 
by Nicolas Martínez Rey and Nancy Benilde Vázquez Regueiro CB, Porvenir IV 
SL and Hnos. Deza SL. 
Costs 
53 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which are rendered applicable to 
the appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 118, the unsuccessful party is to be 
ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's 
pleadings. Article 69(4), which is also applicable to the appeal proceedings, 
provides that Member States and institutions which intervene in the proceedings 
are to bear their own costs. As the Council applied for costs and the applicants 
have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. The 
Commission shall bear its own costs. 
54 Under Article 69(6) of the Rules of Procedure, which are rendered applicable to 
the appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 118, where a case does not proceed to 
judgment, the costs are in the discretion of the Court. In the circumstances of the 
present case, the prospective interveners must bear their own costs. 
I-8818 
FEDERACIÓN DE COFRADÍAS DE PESCADORES DE GUIPÚZCO AND OTHERS V COUNCIL 
On those grounds, 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 
hereby orders: 
1. The appeal is dismissed. 
2. It is unnecessary to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene. 
3. The Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa, the Federación de 
Cofradías de Pescadores de Vizcaya, the Federación de Cofradías de 
Pescadores de Cantabria and the 59 other applicants named in the annex 
shall pay the costs of the appeal. 
4. The Commission of the European Communities, the Comunidad Autónoma 
del País Vasco, Nicolas Martínez Rey and Nancy Benilde Vazquez Regueiro 
CB, Porvenir IV SL and Hnos. Deza SL shall bear their own costs. 
Luxembourg, 12 October 2000. 
R. Grass 
Registrar 
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias 
President 
I -8819 
ORDER OF 12. 10. 2000 — CASE C-300/00 P(R) 
Annex 
Agarimo, CB 
Armador Souto, S.L. 
Andacallado, S.L. 
Andrés Cipriano y Cipriano Teira Sampedro 
Andrés García Boutureira 
Angel Costa 
Antonio y Fernando Queiruga Sampedro CB 
Antonio Costa Vieitez 
Arturo y Santiago Iglesias Martínez 
Ayaso Casais, Feo. y Otro CB 
Cabaleiro Otero Ángel y Manuel CB 
Carmen Estela CB 
Centolo, S.L. 
Chono, S.L. 
Colla Pesca, S.L. 
Eduardo Antonio Carreño Casal 
Encarnación Soteliño Dacosta 
Eusebio, S.L. 
Eugenio González Busta y Pedro Busta Rodríguez CB 
Fermín y Angel Manuel Chamorro Veiga 
Francisco Galiñanes Domínguez 
Francisco Monteagudo Ayaso 
Francisco Vidal Tomé y otros, S.C. 
Gerardo González Lado 
Hnos. Deza, S.L. 
Jesús Costa Piñeiro 
Joaquín Gómez Burgos 
José Antonio Martínez Calvo 
José Teira Sampedro 
López Calo, S.L. 
Luis Carreño Casal 
Manuel Costa Trigo 
Manuel García Martínez 
I - 8820 
FEDERACIÓN DE COFRADÍAS DE PESCADORES DE GUIPÚZCO AND OTHERS V COUNCIL 
Manuel Trigo Duran 
Mi Nombre, S.A. 
Moropa, S.L. 
Muñiz Calvo, S.L. 
Muñiz Orellán, Hermanos CB 
Nuevo Eusebio Pérez CB 
Nuevo Mirando al Mar CB 
Nvo Brisas de Lastres CB 
Nuevo San Mateo CB 
Nvo. Virgen Poderosa CB 
Otero y Somoza CB 
Percebellos CB 
Pesquera Xurel, S.L. 
Pesqueras Illa de Arousa, S.L. 
Pesquerías Borraxeiro, S.A. 
Playa de Ares CB 
Portorían, S.L. 
Ramón Baulo Aragunde 
Rionovo CB 
Santa Nina CB 
Serviola Cuatro CB 
Siempre Emperatriz CB 
Ton e Hijos, S.L. 
Tongermún CB 
Xoquinteira, S.L. 
Xoubiña de Portosín, S.L 
I - 8821