Action brought on 4 October 2019 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union, European Parliament

(Case C-733/19)

(2019/C 423/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. Noort and P. Huurnink, acting as Agents)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— principally, annul: — point 1 of Part D of Annex V in relation to the pulse-fishing ban; — point 2 of Part D of Annex V to the extent that there is mention of a transition period, and to the extent that there is mention of a condition to allow no more than 5 % of the beam trawler fleet to fish with the beam trawl using electric current (point 2(a)), and — points 3, 4 and 5 of Part D of Annex V to the contested regulation (1);

— in the alternative, should the Court be unable to annul the requested elements of Part D of Annex V, annul Part D of Annex V in its entirety, as well as the phrase ‘which shall … be allowed’ of Article 7(1)(b) of the contested regulation, in which reference is made to Part D of Annex V;

— in the further alternative, should the Court declare inadmissible the principal claim or the alternative claim for partial annulment of the contested regulation, annul the regulation in its entirety, and

— order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: infringement of Article 3(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 11 TFEU, with Article 191(3) TEU, with Articles 2, 3(c)(h) and (i) and 6(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation (2) and with Article 3(1) of the contested regulation, in that the Parliament and the Council did not establish the pulse-fishing ban and the transitional period in the contested regulation on the basis of the best available scientific advice.

Second plea: infringement of Article 3(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 11 TFEU, with Article 173(1) and (3) TFEU, with Articles 2, 3(h) and 6(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation and with Article 3(1) of the contested regulation, in that the Parliament and the Council established the pulse-fishing ban and the transitional period in the contested regulation in contravention of the duty to foster innovation and technological development.

Third plea: infringement of Article 3(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article TFEU, with the first subparagraph of Article 191(1) TFEU, with Articles 2(2) and 3(h) of the CFP Basic Regulation and with Article 3(1) of the contested regulation, to the extent that the Parliament and the Council based the pulse-fishing ban and the transitional period in the contested regulation on the precautionary principle.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 (OJ 2019 L 198, p. 105).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 22).