Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2008:230
Date: 2008-04-17
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy
Concepts: General;Applications by natural or legal persons;Common structural policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful;Appeal - successful
Origin: Ireland

Summary of the Judgment 1. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for an actual and current interest (Art. 230 EC; Council Decision 97/413, Art. 4(2); Commission Decisions 98/125, Annex, point 3.3, and 2003/245) 2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Decision 2003/245) 3. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Multiannual guidance programmes (Council Decision 97/413, Art. 4(2); Commission Decision 2003/245) 1. An applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must, in the light of the purpose of the action, exist at the time at which the action is brought, failing which it will be inadmissible. That purpose must continue, like the interest in bringing proceedings, until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage to the party bringing it. In that regard, anyone who, in compliance with the applicable rules, has sought an increase in capacity of certain fishing vessels on the ground of safety improvements by having a replacement vessel built, pursuant to Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation and to point 3.3 of the annex to Decision 98/125 approving the multiannual guidance programme for the fishing fleet of Ireland for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001, clearly has an interest in seeking the annulment of a decision refusing the corresponding authorisation. Annulment of a Commission decision refusing the authorisation sought means, in effect, for all those whose requests were rejected, that the granting of an authorisation becomes possible again following a fresh examination of those requests, which the Commission is obliged to undertake. Where such authorisation is forthcoming, it means that whatever steps remain to be taken (including, if necessary, having a replacement vessel built) in order to achieve or use the increased capacity sought may be taken in compliance with any applicable conditions and time-limits. Therefore, the appellants who, at the date of the contested decision, had not had the vessels referred to in Annex II to the decision built, so that at the date of that decision they were not owners of the vessels, cannot be regarded, on that ground, as not having had an interest in bringing an action. (see paras 25, 32-34) 2. Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed by a decision. In that regard, the appellants who, at the date of Decision 2003/245 on the requests received by the Commission to increase Multiannual Guidance Programme IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall, had not had the vessels referred to in Annex II to the decision built, cannot be regarded, on that ground, as not being individually concerned by that decision since they submitted individual requests for an increase in safety tonnage in respect of the vessels referred to in Annex II. In those circumstances, the submission of those requests is a circumstance capable of differentiating them from all other persons and of distinguishing them individually just as in the case of the person addressed by that decision. (see paras 36, 41) 3. Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation imposes no limit as regards the age of a vessel eligible for an increase in capacity on safety grounds. The concept of improvements referred to in that provision refers to improvements to the national fleet, instead of to a particular vessel. It is not necessary therefore, in order to attain the objective pursued by that decision of conserving the fishing stocks in Community waters, that new vessels be excluded from the regime laid down by that provision. In those circumstances, by adopting in Decision 2003/245 on the requests received by the Commission to increase Multiannual Guidance Programme IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall criteria which are not provided for in the applicable legislation, the Commission exceeded its powers. (see paras 46-47)