EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/9

Appeal brought on 31 December 2012 by Jean-François Giordano against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2012 in Case T-114/11 Giordano v Commission

(Case C-611/12 P)

2013/C 71/15

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-Francois Giordano (represented by: D. Rigeade and A. Scheuer, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of 7 November 2012 delivered by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-114/11.

And consequently:

— Hold that the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 (1) of the Commission of the European Communities caused Mr Jean-François Giordano harm;

— Order the Commission to pay Mr Jean-François Giordano damages in the sum of five hundred and forty-two thousand five hundred and ninety-four Euro (EUR 542 594), plus interest at the statutory rate and on a compound basis;

— Order the Commission to pay the whole costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on six pleas in law in support of his appeal.

First, he considers that the General Court erred by holding that the harm he alleged was not genuine and certain, whereas the envisaged cessation of fishing would cause him harm because he would lose the opportunity to fish against his whole quota.

Second, the appellant considers that the General Court infringed Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (2) and made a manifest error of assessment. Under Article 7 of that Regulation, only a serious threat to the conservation of marine resources would allow the Commission to adopt emergency measures. However, the Commission does not prove that there was fishing outside quotas during the 2008 bluefin tuna fishing season.

Third, the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 restricted the appellant’s activity, thereby infringing Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which provides that everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

Fourth, the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 530/2008, which prohibits bluefin tuna fishing from 16 June 2008, infringes the principle of legal certainty, whereas individuals should be entitled to work under clear and fixed rules.

Fifth, the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. According to the appellant, persons have the right to be reasonably sure that the undertakings they have been given will be respected. Bluefin tuna fishing was initially authorised in France until 30 June 2008, meaning that the appellant had a legitimate expectation that he would be able to carry on fishing until that date.

Finally, the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 infringed the appellant’s right of property which is however protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. Since bluefin tuna coming from fishing is ‘property’ within the meaning of that Article, the envisaged cessation of fishing would cause the appellant serious economic loss and deprive him of a potential debt.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59).