Case T-330/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco and Others v Commission
Date: 2008-08-12
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), fishery management, fishing area, fishing industry, fishing rights, sea fish

C 272/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.10.2008

Form of order sought

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — AJD Tuna v
Commission

— Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of
12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

in law and main arguments are the same as
The pleas
those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio &
Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Mareggiando in
Calabria — Servizi Pesca Turismo and Others v
Commission

(Case T-328/08)

(2008/C 272/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Mareggiando in Calabria — Servizi Pesca Turismo
Soc. coop. (Vibo Valentia, Italy), De Leonardo (Vibo Valentia,
Italy), Finelli (Vibo Valentia, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana,
A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-329/08)

(2008/C 272/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: AJD Tuna (Mosta Road, Malta) (represented by: M.
Annoni, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Regulation No 530/2008 of 12 June
2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse
seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of
longtitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea, with refer-
ence, in particular, to Article 3 of that regulation.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
on in Case T-305/08 Italian Republic v Commission and Case
T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c. v Commission.
In particular,
legitimate
in so far as the Community
expectation has been infringed,
legislation on fishing for bluefin tuna gave rise to a reasonably
founded expectation on the part of the applicant that its fish
farming and fattening activities were lawful.

it is submitted that the principle of

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Ligny Pesca di
Guaiana Francesco and Others v Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of
12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

(Case T-330/08)

(2008/C 272/78)

Language of the case: Italian

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

The pleas
in law and main arguments are the same as
those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio &
Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.

Applicants: Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco e C. Snc (Trapani,
Italy), Macaluso Gaetano (Palermo, Italy), Gallo (Salerno, Italy),
Severino Pesca (Salerno, Italy), Gallo Pesca (Salerno, Italy), Fulvia
di Pappalardo Luigi Matteo (Cetara, Italy), Federazione Nazionale
delle Imprese di Pesca (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Clarizia
and P. Ziotti, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/39

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Allow the claims set out in the introduction to the applica-
tion and, consequently, annul
the Regulation which has
imposed a ban, as from 16 June 2008, on fishing for
bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W,
and in the Mediterranean Sea by purse seiners flying the
Italian flag (Article 1 of the Regulation) and has prohibited
Community operators, as
from
accepting landings, placing in cages for fattening or farming,
or transhipments in Community waters or ports of bluefin
tuna caught in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W,
and the Mediterranean Sea by such vessels (Article 3(1) of
the Regulation).

from 16 June 2008,

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings,
pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance, including the applicants' legal assis-
tance costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
on in Cast T-305/08 Italian Republic v Commission and Case
T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c. v Commission.
In particular, it is submitted that the legal basis of the contested
regulation is incorrect, in so far as Article 7 of Regulation (EC)
No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and
sustainable
the
Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59) is not appro-
priate for the purpose of adopting the measures in the contested
regulation,
for which recourse should have been had to
Article 26(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2371/2002.

resources under

exploitation of

fisheries

Action brought on 14 August 2008 — BNP Paribas and
BNL v Commission

(Case T-335/08)

(2008/C 272/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA
(BNL) (represented by: R. Silvestri, G. Escalar and M. Todino,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— Annulment in its entirety of Commission Decision C(2008)
869 final of 11 March 2008 on state aid C-15/2007
(ex NN 20/2007),
implemented by Italy ‘concerning tax
incentives in favour of certain credit institutions undergoing
company reorganisation’

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the provision whereby Italian Law
No 350/2003,
in the part instituting a special system of tax
realignment (the ‘special system’) for the assets of certain credit
institutions resulting from reorganisations carried out under
Law No 218 of 30 July 1990 (‘the Amato law’) was declared
incompatible with Article 87 of the EC Treaty on state aid.
According to the Commission, the unlawfulness on the special
system under Article 87 of the Treaty is based on the assump-
tion that, by that system, the Italian legislature granted a ‘selec-
tive’ tax advantage solely to banking institutions concerned by
the reorganisations referred to in the Amato law, without
providing similar benefits for other institutions and other under-
takings in general.

In support of its arguments, the applicants maintain that the
Commission erroneously held that the special system of realign-
ment granted an economic advantage to the beneficiary compa-
nies and thus a form of unlawful aid. In reality, the system did
not confer a tax advantage, but merely constituted an optional
system for which companies might opt in anticipation of the
payment of tax on the basis of a replacement rate.

Even if the system in question did confer on the undertakings
some form of advantage, it did not constitute a state aid because
it was not selective in character. The tax system in question
constituted a coherent solution in relation to the general taxa-
tion system and was based on objective criteria, namely to allow
those credit
institutions concerned by the privatisations to
realign the contributions pursuant to the Amato law through
the imposition of a rate taking account of both the previous
partial taxation on increases in value already recorded and the
other
in connection with those contributions;
inconveniences not affecting all other undertakings — unlike
banks
to Law
No 350/2003 — which had received contributions in a context
different from that law, and for which a differently-functioning
realignment system was fully justified.

contributions pursuant

concerned by the

inelasticities

Secondly, the Commission's decision is vitiated by a glaring
defect of reasoning arising from the erroneous conviction that
Law No 350/2003 did not provide for any general realignment
system. Incorrectly holding that there was no general realign-
ment
system
complained of, the Commission failed to make any comparison
between the two systems in order to assess all
the factors
capable of having an impact on the overall tax burdens proper
to each system.

compared with the

system to be

special