1.9.2001 EN C 245/21 Official Journal of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 June 2001 by José Martı ´Peix against 2. In the alternative, if the Court of First Instance should
take the view that there in nothing in the applicable Commission of the European Communities
Community legislation to indicate that the time-limit has
expired, the applicant claims that the decision implies
(Case T-125/01) that there has been a lack of administrative diligence,
since the applicant is now bereft of judicial protection
and legal certainty and its legitimate expectations have
(2001/C 245/35) been dashed and the basic principles enshrined in the
Community’s case-law have been disregarded.
(Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-Likewise, the time which has elapsed between the factsties was brought before the Court of First Instance of thecomplained of by the Commission took place and theEuropean Communities on 8 June 2001 by José Martı ´Peix,date on which the contested decision was adopted leadsresiding in Huelva (Spain), represented by Ramo ´n Garcı ´a-to the conclusion that the institution has exceeded theGallardo and Marı ´a Dolores Domı ´nguez Pérez.reasonable period in which to adopt a decision so
detrimental to the interests of the applicant. In particular,
instead of initiating a procedure for reduction immedi-ately after the applicant informed it of the facts in the The applicant claims that the Court should:
context of the Regular Activity Reports, the Commission
took no action whatsoever and allowed nearly six years
— uphold the present application; to elapse.
— annul Commission Decision C(2001)679 final of
19 March 2001, reducing aid granted to José Martı ´Peix
SA by Commission Decision C(91)2474 of 16 December 3. In the event that the Court should find that the Com-
1991, amended by Commission Decision C(93)1131 mission adopted the decision within a reasonable time,
final/4 of 12 May 1993, for a project relating to the the applicant submits that that decision is null and voidsetting-up of a mixed company in the fishing sector as regards the substance on the following grounds:
(SM/ESP/17/91);
— make any other order as appropriate requiring the
— with regard to one of the vessels, which sank, Commission of the European Communities to comply
inasmuch as the withdrawal of assistance was with its obligations under Article 233 EC and, in particu-
decided upon after an error of assessment was lar, to re-examine the situation;
committed, since the Commission states that it was
the recipient of ‘false information’, which is not true.
— order the Commission of the European Communities to Moreover, the Commission bases its decision on the
pay the costs. obligation to replace the lost vessel, an obligation
which was not written into the legislation applicable
at the time;
Pleas in law and main arguments
— so far as concerns the remaining vessels, the Com-
mission penalises the failure to communicate their By this application the applicants seek the annulment of a
departure from the waters of the country referred to decision taken by the Commission reducing the financial
in the decision granting the assistance, a merely assistance granted to a project relating to the setting-up of a
administrative requirement, while disregarding the mixed company in the fishing sector. The applicant claims
fact that the aforementioned vessels continue to that the decision is null and void inasmuch as the alleged
operate under the aegis of another mixed company irregularities found by the Commission do not exist. The
and continue to pursue the objects which prompted applicant bases itself on four grounds:
the creation of that company.
1. The applicant claims that the decision is null and void
since, at the time when it was adopted, it was out of timein order to base its reduction of aid on the facts. Indeed,
the Commission has failed to take any administrative
action at all on the case and has reduced the assistance
only after the statutory time-limit.