Case T-125/01: Action brought on 8 June 2001 by José Martí Peix against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), economic concentration, fishing industry, fraud against the EU

1.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 245/21

Action brought on 8 June 2001 by José Martı´ Peix against
Commission of the European Communities

2.

In the alternative, if the Court of First Instance should
take the view that there in nothing in the applicable
Community legislation to indicate that the time-limit has
expired, the applicant claims that the decision implies
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
been dashed and the basic principles enshrined in the
Community’s case-law have been disregarded.

Likewise, the time which has elapsed between the facts
complained of by the Commission took place and the
date on which the contested decision was adopted leads
to the conclusion that the institution has exceeded the
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
context of the Regular Activity Reports, the Commission
took no action whatsoever and allowed nearly six years
to elapse.

3.

In the event that the Court should find that the Com-
mission adopted the decision within a reasonable time,
the applicant submits that that decision is null and void
as regards the substance on the following grounds:

— with regard to one of the vessels, which sank,
inasmuch as the withdrawal of assistance was
decided upon after an error of assessment was
committed, since the Commission states that it was
the recipient of ‘false information’, which is not true.
Moreover, the Commission bases its decision on the
obligation to replace the lost vessel, an obligation
which was not written into the legislation applicable
at the time;

— so far as concerns the remaining vessels, the Com-
mission penalises the failure to communicate their
departure from the waters of the country referred to
in the decision granting the assistance, a merely
administrative requirement, while disregarding the
fact that the aforementioned vessels continue to
operate under the aegis of another mixed company
and continue to pursue the objects which prompted
the creation of that company.

(Case T-125/01)

(2001/C 245/35)

(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 8 June 2001 by José Martı´ Peix,
residing in Huelva (Spain), represented by Ramo´ n Garcı´a-
Gallardo and Marı´a Dolores Domı´nguez Pérez.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present application;

— 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
1991, amended by Commission Decision C(93)1131
final/4 of 12 May 1993, for a project relating to the
setting-up of a mixed company in the fishing sector
(SM/ESP/17/91);

— make any other order as appropriate requiring the
Commission of the European Communities to comply
with its obligations under Article 233 EC and, in particu-
lar, to re-examine the situation;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this application the applicants seek the annulment of a
decision taken by the Commission reducing the financial
assistance granted to a project relating to the setting-up of a
mixed company in the fishing sector. The applicant claims
that the decision is null and void inasmuch as the alleged
irregularities found by the Commission do not exist. The
applicant bases itself on four grounds:

1.

The applicant claims that the decision is null and void
since, at the time when it was adopted, it was out of time
in 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.