Case C-350/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. s.n.c, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., and Valentino Pesca s.a.s. di Camplone Arnaldo & C. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-316/13 Pappalardo and Others v Commission
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU law, Mediterranean Sea, conservation of fish stocks, damages, equal treatment, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2016343EN.01002802.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/28





Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. s.n.c, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., and Valentino Pesca s.a.s. di Camplone Arnaldo & C. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-316/13 Pappalardo and Others v Commission
(Case C-350/16 P)
(2016/C 343/41)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellants: Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. s.n.c, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., and Valentino Pesca s.a.s. di Camplone Arnaldo & C. (represented by: V. Cannizzaro and L. Caroli, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:






—


Primarily, set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-316/13 and refer the case back to the General Court in order that it may give a ruling on the dispute in compliance with the principles of law established by the Court of Justice.










—


In the alternative, should it find, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute, that the documents before it enable it to do so, decide on the merits of the claim for compensation put forward by the appellants in the action originally brought before the General Court and, specifically:






1.


declare that the European Commission has incurred non-contractual liability for the damage caused to the appellants by the adoption of Regulation No 530/2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45oW, and in the Mediterranean Sea, (1) declared invalid by the Court of Justice by judgment of 17 March 2011 in Case C-221/09 [AJD Tuna]; and, consequently,










2.


order the European Commission to compensate the appellants for the damage caused;














—


Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.





Pleas in law and main arguments







I.


The General Court erred in law in excluding the relevance of its order of 14 February 2012 in Case T-305/08 for establishing the significance of the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna in respect of Regulation No 530/2008.
In order to declare that there was no need to adjudicate in Case T-305/08, the order of 14 February 2012 interpreted the judgment in AJD Tuna as having entirely satisfied the applicant’s claim in that case, namely the request for a declaration of invalidity of Article 1 of Regulation No 530/2008. Therefore, establishing the significance of the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna forms the subject matter of the decision given in the order of 14 February 2012.
It follows that, in the judgment now under appeal, the General Court should have applied the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna in respect of Regulation No 530/2008, the significance of which was established in its order of 14 February 2012 in Case T-305/08.










II.


The General Court erred in law in holding that the infringement by Regulation No 530/2008 of the principle of non-discrimination does not constitute a clear and serious breach.
The General Court failed to take into account how the clear and serious nature of the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination is already indicated by the judgment in AJD Tuna. In addition, the General Court failed to apply the principles laid down in its own case-law in Case T-351/03 Schneider v Commission and in Case T-429/05 Artegodan v Commission. Lastly, the General Court failed to apply the test set out by the Court of Justice in Case C-440/07 P Commission v Schneider.






(1)  OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9.