Case C-382/06 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2006 by Ocean Trawlers Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03: Cathal Boyle and others v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), appeal, carrying capacity, fishing vessel, maritime safety

C 294/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

Thus the postponement of the application of the maximum
period of 60 days cannot be regarded as an additional require-
ment in favour of creditors, nor is it in any event acceptable, in
legislation to
particular on account of the fact that national
transpose Directive 2000/35/EC ought to have been brought
into force before August 2002.

— Annul Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003
on the requests received by the Commission to increase
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 as it applied to the safety capacity application
for a proposed new RSW vessel MFV Golden Rose.

(1) OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000. p. 35.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the entirety of

these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

By determining the appellant's interest in bringing the proceed-
ings by reference to the date of
the adoption of decision
2003/245 and not the date on which the application was
lodged the Court of First Instance applied an incorrect legal
test;

The Court made a substantive error apparent from the docu-
ments submitted to it, namely as to the appellant's ownership
of the MFV ‘Golden Rose’ at all times material to the applica-
tion;

The finding that the appellant was not individually concerned
by decision 2003/245 ‘since the vessels in question are ficti-
tious’ has no basis in law and is, moreover, contradicted by the
reasoning of the Court of First Instance in its judgment;

The appellant is, and at all material times has been, the owner
of the MFV ‘Golden Rose’. It therefore cannot be said to have
lost the interest it unquestionably had at the commencement of
its action for the annulment of decision 2003/245 in so far as
it impacted upon its application for safety tonnage in respect of
the proposed MFV ‘Golden Rose’;

The Court of First Instance erred in finding that the appellant
was deprived of standing to seek the annulment of decision
2003/245 by reason of the steps it took to mitigate the loss
and damage sustained as a result of that measure.

(1) OJ L 90, P. 48

Appeal brought on 14 September 2006 by Ocean Trawlers
Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases
T-218/03 to T-240/03: Cathal Boyle and others v Commis-
sion of the European Communities

(Case C-382/06 P)

(2006/C 294/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ocean Trawlers Ltd (represented by: P. Gallagher SC,
A. Collins SC, D. Barry, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland, Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of June
13, 2006 in so far as it dismissed the application in Case T-
226/03, Ocean Trawlers Ltd. V. Commission for the annul-
ment of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC (1) of 4 April
2003 on the requests received by the Commission to
increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improve-
ments on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality
and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in
length overall as it applied to the safety capacity application
for proposed new RSW vessel MFV Golden Rose and
ordered Ocean Trawlers Ltd. to bear its own costs.