Case T-177/01: Action brought on 2 August 2001 by Jego-Quéré & Cie S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-10-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fishery management, fishery resources, fishing industry, fishing regulations

13.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/33

In support of its application, the application submits:

— The formal investigation procedure was initiated illegally,
in so far as the aid granted to the applicant constitutes no
more than the application in a particular case of the
scheme set up by the 1978 Law, as subsequently
amended, which had been approved by the Commission.
The Commission assessed the aid directly in the light of
the provisions of the Treaty, as well as by reference to an
aid scheme which had already been authorised.

— Both the initiation of the formal investigation and its
findings exceeded the proper scope of such investigations;

the environment

— Breach of the principle of legal certainty, the protection
of legitimate expectations and the rights of the defence.
In particular, it is submitted that the contested decision
(paragraph 3) is based on the Community rules governing
in
State aid for the protection of
2001 (1), whereas the investigation of the aid to Ferriere
was conducted wholly by reference to the environmental
legislation for 1994. The decision to open the formal
procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and the
invitation to interested parties to submit observations
were made with reference to the 1994 rules and it was
on the basis of that legislation the applicant submitted its
observations.
In consequence, Ferriere was unable to
exercise its rights of defence. The applicant contests, inter
alia, the Commission’s statement that neither the Italian
authorities nor the applicant produced adequate docu-
mentary evidence of the environmental aims underlying
the grant of the aid in question.

— Breach of the principle of sound administration, in so far

as the Commission:

— decided to open the formal procedure when this was

not permissible;

— failed to choose the correct legal basis (whether
under ECSC or EC law) for evaluating the aid;

— constantly altered the reasons given for first suppos-
ing and then confirming that the aid granted was
incompatible with the common market;

— conducted the investigation on the basis of the 1994
environmental legislation but, upon the conclusion
of that enquiry, adopted a decision on the basis of
more recent legislation (the 2001 rules).

It is also submitted that:

— the aid was evaluated in arbitrary fashion as regards
the benefits of the Ferriere investment in the working

evironment in terms of reducing noise and atmospheric
pollution;

— the Commission failed to evaluate the investment in

terms of the elimination of hazardous waste;

— the aims of the investment were evaluated in arbitrary
fashion and the Community rules governing aid for
protection of the environment were misapplied.

(1) OJ 2001, C 3, p. 3.

Action brought on 2 August 2001 by Jego-Quéré & Cie
S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-177/01)

(2001/C 289/73)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 August 2001 by Jego-Quéré &
Cie S.A., established at Lorient (France), represented by Antonio
Creus Carreras, Begon˜ a Uriarte Valiente and Albert Augustinoy
Guilayn, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Articles 3(d) and 5 of the Commission Regulation
of 14 June 2001 establishing measures for the recovery
of the stock of hake in ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and
VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d, e and associated
conditions for the control of activities of fishing vessels
(OJ 2001 L 159, p. 4);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant’s activities are concentrated on fishing for
whiting, with only incidental by-catches of hake, in the areas
in which the contested regulation is applicable.

In support of its application, the applicant pleads violation of
the principles of proportionality and of equality and a failure
to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons. The
applicant claims that the Commission has failed to take its
specific situation into account, whereas it has taken into
account that of other fishermen making only incidental by-
catches of hake, and has laid down exceptions and specific
measures in relation to them. Those exceptions and specific
measures do not relate to the applicant.