Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:98
Date: 2003-04-03
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;External relations;Fisheries policy
Concepts: Statement of reasons;The various agreements concluded by the Community;Rights of the defence and procedural guarantees;Legal certainty;Independent nature of the action for damages;Basis of liability;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;Principle of proportionality;Common structural policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Spain;Provisional data;Argentina

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Fisheries — Common structural policy — Fisheries agreement between the EEC and 
Argentina — Encouragement of the creation of joint enterprises — Community 
financial aid — Decision reducing or withdrawing the aid — Community competence 
notwithstanding the absence of a specific provision 
(Agreement between the Community and the Argentine Republic on relations in the sea 
fisheries sector; Council Regulation No 3447/93) 
II - 1209 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-44/01, T-l 19/01 AND T-126/01 
2. Fisheries — Common Structural policy — Fisheries agreement between the EEC and 
Argentina — Encouragement of the creation of joint enterprises — Community 
financial aid — Reduction of the aid — Commission obligation to consult the Joint 
Committee and obtain the approval of the Argentinian authorities — None 
(Agreement between the Community and the Argentine Republic on relations in the sea 
fisheries sector) 
3. Fisheries — Common structural policy — Fisheries agreement between the EEC and 
Argentina — Encouragement of joint enterprises — Community financial aid — 
Vessels abandoning Argentinian waters without prior agreement of the Commission —· 
Clear breach of a condition for granting aid 
(Agreement between the Community and the Argentine Republic on relations in the sea 
fisheries sector) 
4. Fisheries — Common structural policy — Fisheries agreement between the EEC and 
Argentina — Reduction of financial aid for non-compliance, by the joint enterprise 
which received the aid, with the obligation to fish in Argentinian waters for a set 
period — Reduction pro rata temporis — Breach of the principle of proportional­
ity — None 
(Agreement between the Community and the Argentine Republic on relations in the sea 
fisheries sector) 
5. Fisheries — Common structural policy — Commission decision to reduce the amount 
of Community financial aid — Voluntary consultation of a committee despite its 
non-binding character — No bearing on the lawfulness of the decision 
6. Fisheries — Common structural policy — Fisheries agreement between the EEC and 
Argentina — Encouragement of the creation of joint enterprises — Community 
financial aid — Decision to reduce the aid — Calculation of the final amount of 
the aid — Application by analogy of the provisions of Regulation No 3699/93 — 
Permissible 
(Agreement between the Community and the Argentine Republic on relations in the sea 
fisheries sector; Council Regulation No 3699/93) 
7. Community law — Principles — Must act within a reasonable time — Commission 
obligation in administrative proceedings — Breach •— Effects 
II - 1210 
VIEIRA AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
8. Community law — Principles — Legal certainty — Protection of legitimate expec­
tations — Reduction of financial aid for non-compliance with a primary condition for 
granting it — Breach — None — Beneficiary not able to rely on previous irregular­
ities not prosecuted 
9. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Com­
mission decision to reduce the amount of Community financial aid — Reasoning 
based on alterations made to the initial project — Considerations relating to those 
alterations not sufficient on their own 
(Art. 253 EC) 
10.Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Damage — Suspension of financial aid 
during the administrative procedure leading to a decision to reduce aid 
(Art. 288, second para., EC) 
11.Actions for damages — Independent of actions for annulment — Action seeking 
withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive — Inadmissible 
(Art. 235 EC) 
1. Even if the Agreement between the 
European Economic Community and 
the Argentine Republic on relations in 
the sea fisheries sector, and Regulation 
No 3447/93, whereby that agreement 
was approved on behalf of the Com­
munity, do not contain any provision 
specifically relating to a possible reduc­
tion or withdrawal of financial aid 
granted under that Agreement, where, 
under Article 7 of the Agreement and 
Article 3(1) of its Protocol, the Com­
munity has granted financial aid for the 
creation of joint enterprises it must also 
have the power to reduce that aid if the 
conditions under which it was granted 
have not been observed. 
Any other interpretation of the fisheries 
agreement would be contrary to the 
general principles of law common to 
the legal systems of the Member States, 
such as the principle which prohibits 
unjust enrichment or that which allows 
bilateral commitments to be unilat­
erally terminated when one of the 
contracting parties fails to comply with 
its obligations. It follows that, on the 
basis of Regulation No 3447/93 and 
the fisheries agreement, the Commu­
nity had general competence to adopt 
those decisions reducing or withdraw­
ing aid. 
(see paras 84-87) 
II - 1211 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-44/01, T-119/01 AND T-126/01 
2. The Agreement between the European 
Economic Community and the Argen­
tine Republic on relations in the sea 
fisheries sector is divided into two 
parts: the international component, 
concerning cooperation between the 
Community and the Argentine Repub­
lic, and the Community component, 
which includes, inter alia, the financing 
granted by the Commission to Com­
munity shipowners for the creation of 
joint enterprises under the fisheries 
agreement. The selection and evalu­
ation of projects to create joint enter­
prises fall under the international com­
ponent of the fisheries agreement. The 
creation of such enterprises is an 
instrument of cooperation between 
the Community and the Argentine 
Republic in the fisheries sector. As 
such, under paragraphs 2 to 5 of 
Annex III to the Agreement, the selec­
tion of projects requires an evaluation 
by the Joint Committee and approval 
by both the Communi ty and the 
Argentinian authorities. By contrast, 
the grant of financial aid to Commu­
nity shipowners for projects which are 
selected is a unilateral measure by the 
Community and therefore comes under 
the Community component of the 
fisheries agreement. Those provisions 
provide no ground for inferring that 
the Commission is required to consult 
the Joint Committee and to obtain the 
approval of the Argentinian authorities 
before taking a decision to reduce 
financial aid granted to a Community 
shipowner for the creation of a joint 
enterprise. 
(see paras 101-106) 
3. W h e r e a jo in t en te rp r i se w h i c h 
obtained financial aid from the Com­
mission under the Agreement between 
the European Economic Community 
and the Argen t i ne R e p u b l i c on 
relations in the sea fisheries sector 
abandons waters under Argentinian 
jurisdiction or sovereignty, and thus 
ceases fishing activity in those waters 
without the prior authorisation of the 
Commission, that constitutes a clear 
breach of a condition for granting that 
aid. One of the principal objectives of 
the Community in entering into the 
fisheries agreement was to obtain 
access to Argentinian fishery resources 
for Community shipowners. In order to 
attain that objective, the agreement 
encourages the creation of joint enter­
prises. It follows that joint enterprises 
created within the framework of the 
fisheries agreement are required to 
exploit and, where appropriate, pro­
cess Argentinian fishery resources. 
Only fishery p roduc t s caugh t in 
Argentinian waters constitute Argenti­
nian fishery resources, and it cannot be 
claimed that fishery products caught 
both within and beyond the waters of 
the Argentinian Exclusive Economic 
Zone (EEZ) by a vessel flying the 
Argentinian flag must also be so 
regarded, since the objective of the 
fisheries agreement is to obtain Com­
munity access to new fishing zones 
within the Argentinian EEZ. 
Even if the departure from Argentinian 
waters were necessary as the result of 
depletion of fish stocks in the Argenti­
II - 1212 
VIKIRA AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
nian EEZ, or of fishing prohibitions or 
limitations imposed by the Argentinian 
authorities, the recipients of the aid, 
who are under an obligation to provide 
information and act in good faith that 
is inherent in the system of Community 
financial aid and essential to its func­
tioning, should have informed the 
Commission of the problems they 
encountered in carrying out their pro­
jects. 
(see paras 116, 117, 119, 
120, 122-124) 
4. The reduction pro rata temporis of 
financial aid granted by the Commis­
sion to a joint enterprise within the 
framework of the Agreement between 
the European Economic Community 
and the Argen t ine Republ ic on 
relations in the sea fisheries sector, in 
respect of the period when the vessel 
was not active in the Argentinian EEZ 
is wholly proportionate to the alleged 
infringement, that is, the cessation of 
fishing activities in that zone. Since the 
main purpose pursued by the fisheries 
agreement so far as the Community is 
concerned is access for Community 
owners to the Argentinian EEZ, the 
requirement to exploit and process 
Argentinian fishery resources must be 
regarded as a primary obligation which 
forms an integral part of the system of 
subsidies for joint enterprises, and the 
departure from Argentinian waters 
without Commission authorisation 
therefore necessarily involves an 
infringement of the other primary obli­
gations which are binding on the 
recipient of aid, namely the creation 
of the joint enterprise and the priority 
supply of the Community market. 
(sec paras 142-143) 
5. In the context of the procedure for 
granting Community financial aid, vol­
untary consultation by the Commission 
of a committee which need not be 
consulted does not affect the legality of 
the decision to reduce the financial aid, 
which, moreover, was adopted in com­
pliance with the obligatory procedures 
laid down for its adoption. 
(sec para. 158) 
6. In a proceeding for the reduction of 
Community financial aid granted for 
the creation of a joint fishing enterprise 
under the Agreement between the 
European Economic Community and 
the Argentine Republic on relations in 
the sea fisheries sector, the Commis­
sion, which was bound only by the 
principle of proportionality in calculat­
ing the definitive amount of aid, was 
II - 1213 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-44/01, T-119/01 AND T-126/01 
fully entitled to be guided, by analogy, 
by the provisions of Regulation 
No 3699/93 laying down the criteria 
and arrangements regarding Commu­
nity structural assistance in the fisheries 
and aquaculture sector and the process­
ing'and marketing of its products in 
order to establish the amount due for 
the transfer of the vessel. In acting in 
that way, it took care to harmonise the 
treatment accorded to a joint enterprise 
created under the fisheries agreement 
with that accorded to joint enterprises 
falling within the scope of that regu­
lation. 
(see para. 163) 
7. Observance of a reasonable time-limit 
is a general principle of Community 
law which the Commission must 
observe in administrative proceedings. 
None the less, the breach of the prin­
ciple of a reasonable time-limit, if 
proved, does not justify automatic 
annulment of the contested decision. 
(see paras 167, 170) 
8. In a situation where a recipient of 
Community financial aid does not 
comply with a primary condition to 
which the grant of aid was made 
subject, that recipient may not rely on 
the principle of the protection of legit­
imate expectations or the principle of 
legal certainty in order to prevent the 
Commission from reducing the aid 
granted to it. The possible existence 
of earlier irregularities which were not 
prosecuted can in no case serve as a 
basis for a legitimate expectation on 
the part of the applicant. 
(see paras 177, 179) 
9. The statement of reasons required by 
Article 253 EC must be appropriate to 
the legal nature of the measure in 
question and the reasoning of the 
institution which adopted the measure 
must be stated clearly and unequivo­
cally, so as to inform the persons 
concerned of the justification for the 
measure adopted and to enable the 
Court to exercise its power of review. 
In the case of a decision reducing 
Community financial aid for a project 
not carried out as specified, the state­
ment of the reasons for such a measure 
must include an indication of the 
reasons why the alterations taken into 
account have been judged to be unac­
ceptable. Considerations relating to the 
extent of those alterations or their lack 
II - 1214 
VIEIRA AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
of prior authorisation cannot, by them­
selves, constitute sufficient reasoning in 
that respect. However, the question 
whether the statement of reasons for a 
measure complies with the require­
ments of Article 253 EC must be 
assessed in the light not only of its 
wording, but also of its context and of 
the body of legal rules which govern 
the matter concerned. 
(see paras 193-195) 
10. In order for the Community to incur 
non-contractual liability within the 
meaning of the second paragraph of 
Article 288 EC, a number of conditions 
must be satisfied concerning the illegal­
ity of the conduct alleged against the 
Community institutions, the fact of the 
damage and the existence of a causal 
link between that conduct and the 
damage complained of. 
It cannot be excluded that a suspension 
of financial aid during the adminis­
trative procedure intended to result in 
the adoption of a decision reducing 
financial aid will give rise to a loss for 
one or other of the parties covered by 
that procedure before the decision to 
reduce the aid is adopted. 
(see paras 202, 207) 
11. Whilst the action for compensation 
based on the second paragraph of 
Article 288 EC is an independent 
action in the context of the legal 
remedies available under Community 
law, so that the fact that an application 
for annulment is inadmissible does not­
in itself render a claim for damages 
inadmissible, an action for damages 
must nevertheless be held to be inad­
missible when it is in fact aimed at 
securing the withdrawal of an individ­
ual decision which has become defini­
tive, and would, if successful, cause the 
legal effects of that decision to be 
nullified. 
(see para. 213) 
II- 1215