Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:249
Date: 2002-10-17
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy
Concepts: Independent nature of the action for damages;Principle of proportionality;Common structural policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Fisheries — Common structural policy — Support for the creation of joint enter­
prises — Community financial assistance — Reduction in assistance — Condition 
(Council Regulation No 4028/86, Art. 44(1)) 
II - 3985 
SUMMARY — CASE T-180/00 
2. Community law — Principles — Proportionality —· Reduction of financial aid as a 
result of non-compliance on the part of the beneficiary joint enterprise of the obligation 
to fish in the waters of the third country referred to in the decision to grant 
assistance —· Breach — None 
(Council Regulation No 4028/86, Arts 21a and 44(1), first indent) 
3. Actions for damages — Independent of actions for annulment — Action seeking 
withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive — Inadmissible 
(Arts 215 EC and 288, second para., EC) 
1. Under the first indent of Article 44(1) 
of Regulation No 4028/86 on Commu­
nity measures to improve and adapt 
fisheries and aquaculture structures, 
the Commission may decide to reduce 
the financial aid granted to a joint 
enterprise if the project is not carried 
out as specified. The exercise of the 
power to reduce aid thus conferred 
upon the Commission is not con­
ditional on the finding of unlawful 
enrichment of the beneficiary of the 
aid. 
(see paras 80, 107) 
2. The Commission is not in breach of the 
principle of proportionality when it 
decides, pursuant to the first indent of 
Article 44(1) of Regulation No 4028/86 
on Community measures to improve 
and adapt fisheries and aquaculture 
structures, to reduce by one tenth the 
financial aid granted to a joint enter­
prise created for the purpose of exploit­
ing and where applicable using, with 
the primary consideration being given 
to the supply of the Community mar­
ket, the fishery resources of waters 
falling within the sovereignty and/or 
jurisdiction of a specific third country, 
on the ground that that enterprise has 
not complied with an essential con­
dition for the proper management and 
stability of the international relations 
between the Community and non-
member countries in the framework 
of the fisheries policy, that is, the 
obligation to fish in the waters of the 
third country referred to in the decision 
to grant assistance. 
It was reasonable for the Commission 
to consider that a less severe sanction 
was likely to compromise the sound 
management of the structural policy 
for fisheries and to invite fraud, since 
beneficiaries of aid would be tempted 
to change fishing zones without 
informing the Commission, at the risk 
only of having that aid reduced in a 
II - 3986 
ASTIPESCA v COMMISSION 
symbolic manner or, in any event, to an 
extent less than that which corresponds 
to the seriousness and duration of the 
infringement. 
(see paras 90-91, 112, 114) 
3. While, clearly, a claim for damages 
based on the second paragraph of 
Article 288 EC is an independent form 
of action in the system of remedies 
available in Community law, so that 
the fact that an application for annul­
ment is inadmissible does not in itself 
render a claim for damages inadmiss­
ible, a claim for damages must never­
theless be held to be inadmissible when 
it is actually aimed at securing with­
drawal of an individual decision which 
has become definitive and would, if 
upheld, have the effect of nullifying the 
legal effects of that decision. 
(see para. 139) 
II - 3987