Case T-234/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Eamon McHugh against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), carrying capacity, fishing vessel, maritime safety

4.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/15

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Noel McGing against
the Commission of the European Communities

The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).

( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.

(Case T-233/03)

(2003/C 239/28)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Noel McGing,
Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel,
MFV Olgarry;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).

(1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.

Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Adrian McClennaghan
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-232/03)

(2003/C 239/27)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Adrian McClen-
naghan, Greencastle, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and
A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
capacity application in respect of the MFV Northern Celt;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings.

Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Eamon McHugh
against the Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).

( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.

(Case T-234/03)

(2003/C 239/29)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Eamon McHugh,
Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.

C 239/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.10.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel,
MFV Antarctic;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).

( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.

Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Gerard Minihane
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-235/03)

(2003/C 239/30)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Gerard Minihane,
Skibbereen, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
capacity application in respect of the MFV Deborah M;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings.

The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).

(1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.

Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Larry Murphy against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-236/03)

(2003/C 239/31)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Larry Murphy,
Castletownbere,
(Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and
A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel to
replace the MFV Menhaden;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).

(1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.