Case C-254/03 P

Eduardo Vieira SA

v

Commission of the European Communities.

(Appeal – Fisheries – Fisheries agreement with Argentina – Community financial aid – Reduction)

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 16 September 2004

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 13 January 2005.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance – Admissible

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c), first para.)

2. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Fisheries agreement between the EEC and Argentina – Community financial aid – Reduction, suspension or cancellation of aid – Application of Regulation No 4253/88

(Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea fisheries sector; Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

3. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Fisheries agreement between the EEC and Argentina – Community financial aid – Reduction of aid – Requirement that the Community authorities consult the Joint Committee or the Argentine authorities – None

(Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea fisheries sector)

4. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Community financial aid – Decision to reduce the aid – Non-obligatory consultation of a committee provided for by Regulation No 4028/86 – Insufficient for the inclusion of that regulation in the legal basis for the decision

(Council Regulation No 4028/86)

1. Where an appellant challenges the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance, the points of law examined at first instance may be discussed again in the course of an appeal. Indeed, if an appellant could not thus base his appeal on pleas in law and arguments already relied on before the Court of First Instance, an appeal would be deprived of part of its purpose. However, it is clear from Article 225 EC, from the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and from the first subparagraph of Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.

(see paras 32-33)

2. As is evident from Article 3(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments and pursuant to Article 24 of that regulation, which governs the reduction, suspension and cancellation of assistance, that article covers not only assistance financed by the Structural Funds but also that financed from Community budget resources applied to other actions for structural purposes, such as aid provided for by the Agreement concluded between the European Economic Community and the Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea fisheries sector.

(see para. 39)

3. The grant of financial aid to Community shipowners for the creation of joint enterprises under the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea fisheries sector is a task which that agreement entrusts to the Community authorities alone. Given that those authorities are not required to consult the Joint Committee or the Argentinian authorities with regard to the grant of that financial aid, there is no such requirement in the converse case either.

(see paras 48-49)

4. The mere consultation of a committee, as provided for by Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, consultation with which is not obligatory, is not of itself sufficient to entail inclusion of that regulation in the legal basis for a decision to reduce financial aid which was taken following that consultation.

(see para. 55)