Case T-251/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — IFSUA v Council

Action brought on 23 April 2018 — IFSUA v Council

(Case T-251/18)

Parties

Applicant: International Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities (IFSUA) (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. Gui Mori, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

On the basis of Article 263(4) in fine TFEU, the applicant, IFSUA, which is directly concerned, claims that the Court should annul, on account of those provisions being clearly severable, Articles 2(2) and 9(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EU) of 23 January 2018 (OJ 2018 L 27, p. 1), which must be regarded as a ‘regulatory act’ implementing restrictive measures and a total allowable catch (TAC) in relation to recreational fishing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application seeks the partial annulment of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 ( 1 ).

In that regard, the applicant seeks annulment of the abovementioned provisions on the basis that, given that they apply to the various forms of recreational fishing, which are activities falling outside the scope of the common fisheries policy, those provisions entail a total ban on fishing European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) that is directed only at underwater fishermen and is accordingly threatening the continuation of that activity, the sport itself and its related industry.

In support of the application, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2(5), 3(1)(d), 4(2)(d) and 6(d) and (e) TFEU in so far as the contested provisions constitute prohibitive measures directed at the underwater recreational and sport fishing of European sea bass, even though the Council has no competence, not even shared competence, in that regard.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that Articles 2(2) and 9(4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2018/120 infringe the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations since they clearly go beyond the scope of competence of the Council and the historical development of that competence.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that Articles 2(2) and 9(4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2018/120 infringe the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union since that single implementing act regulating fishing opportunities in relation to European sea bass, albeit with different criteria, lays down provisions covering both commercial and recreational fishing. However, the applicant claims that those two categories are not strictly comparable and therefore should not be targeted by the same restrictive measures.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that Articles 2(2) and 9(4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2018/120 infringe the principle of proportionality in relation to the implementation of Article 43(3) TFEU. In that regard, the applicant submits that the fixing, in the contested regulation, of fishing opportunities in relation to European sea bass, for both commercial and recreational fishing, is intended to significantly reduce the mortality of the northern population in order to bring about a small increase in biomass. However, the applicant maintains that that objective could be attained by means of less restrictive measures than an outright ban on the underwater fishing of European sea bass. As part of this plea in law, the applicant also alleges infringement of Articles 12, 16, 37 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

( 1 ) Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (OJ 2018 L 27, p. 1).