Case T-119/01: Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pescanova SA against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Argentina, EU aid, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), bilateral agreement, fishing industry

C 245/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.9.2001

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pescanova SA against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-119/01)

(2001/C 245/34)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 June 2001 by Pescanova SA,
whose registered office is at Chapela, Pontevedra (Spain),
represented by Antonio Creus, Begon˜ a Uriarte and Salvador
Rodrı´guez.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 19 March 2001 in
so far as it reduces the contribution granted to that
undertaking by way of Commission Decision C(94)
3834/4 final of 21 December 1994 for a project relating
to the setting up of a joint company in the fishing sector;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision, which was adopted on the basis of
Regulation No 4253/88 (1), in particular Article 24 thereof,
and on the basis of the EC/Argentina Agreement (2), finds that
the Community contribution amounting to EUR 1 824 813
granted in 1994 to the applicant
is to be reduced to
EUR 472 818 over three months, with effect from the date of
the decision. According to the decision, the reason for reducing
the contribution was that the fishing vessel Orense, which was
transferred to Argentina when the joint company was set up,
ceased to fish in Argentinian waters, without
the prior
authorisation of the Commission, eighteen months after the
creation of the company, which is tantamount to a serious
change in the conditions laid down for the granting of the
assistance.

In support of its arguments seeking the annulment of the
contested decision, the applicant claims:

— Lack of legal basis: The contested decision lacks a proper
legal basis, since the EC/Argentina Agreement does not

lay down any procedure for reducing or recovering
assistance granted to joint companies set up in accordance
with the Agreement, neither does it refer to any Com-
munity legislation providing for such procedure. More-
over, the Commission has not specified at any time
throughout the procedure what actual provisions of the
EC/Argentina Agreement or conditions laid down in the
decision granting the assistance it considers to have been
infringed by the applicant. The applicant takes the view
that
there has been no infringement of any of the
provisions of the EC/Argentina Agreement or of the
decision granting the assistance and the contested
decision must be annulled on the ground that
the
Commission erred in its assessment of an infringement
for which there is no legal basis.

— Breach of the principle of sound administration and of the
rights of the defence: The Commission has taken no account
of the applicant’s complaints, which have been submitted
to it on numerous occasions throughout the administrat-
ive procedure.

— Failure to provide a statement of reasons: First, the Com-
mission does not mention in the contested decision what
provisions of applicable legislation it considers to have
been infringed. Secondly, neither does it mention the
facts which led the Orense to cease fishing in Argentinian
waters, so that it did not set out the reasons why it
considered that those facts could not be regarded as force
majeure, capable of justifying the reduction of the amount
of the contribution to be repaid, nor did it set out the
grounds on which it decided not to allow such reduction.

— Breach of

the principles of

legal certainty and legitimate
expectations: The applicant could not in any event have
imagined that the Commission would initiate a procedure
to reduce the contribution, since such a procedure is not
provided for in the applicable legislation, not least in
view of the practice of the Commission at the time and
its lack of reaction when the company informed the
Argentinian authorities that it was leaving Argentinian
waters.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,
laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
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 (OJ 1988 L 374. p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3447/93 of 28 September 1993 on
the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Economic
Community and the Argentine Republic on relations in the sea
fisheries sector (OJ 1993 L 318, p. 1).