CELEX: C2001/289/73
Language: en
Date: 2001-10-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-177/01: Action brought on 2 August 2001 by Jego-Quéré & Cie S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

13.10.2001               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/33
In support of its application, the application submits:                        evironment in terms of reducing noise and atmospheric
                                                                               pollution;
—      The formal investigation procedure was initiated illegally,       —     the Commission failed to evaluate the investment in
       in so far as the aid granted to the applicant constitutes no            terms of the elimination of hazardous waste;
       more than the application in a particular case of the
       scheme set up by the 1978 Law, as subsequently                    —     the aims of the investment were evaluated in arbitrary
       amended, which had been approved by the Commission.                     fashion and the Community rules governing aid for
       The Commission assessed the aid directly in the light of                protection of the environment were misapplied.
       the provisions of the Treaty, as well as by reference to an
       aid scheme which had already been authorised.                     (1) OJ 2001, C 3, p. 3.
—      Both the initiation of the formal investigation and its
       findings exceeded the proper scope of such investigations;
—      Breach of the principle of legal certainty, the protection        Action brought on 2 August 2001 by Jego-Quéré & Cie
       of legitimate expectations and the rights of the defence.         S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
       In particular, it is submitted that the contested decision                                        ties
       (paragraph 3) is based on the Community rules governing
       State aid for the protection of the environment in                                         (Case T-177/01)
       2001 (1), whereas the investigation of the aid to Ferriere
       was conducted wholly by reference to the environmental                                     (2001/C 289/73)
       legislation for 1994. The decision to open the formal
       procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and the                               (Language of the case: French)
       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      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
       observations. In consequence, Ferriere was unable to              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
       exercise its rights of defence. The applicant contests, inter     European Communities on 2 August 2001 by Jego-Quéré &
       alia, the Commission’s statement that neither the Italian         Cie S.A., established at Lorient (France), represented by Antonio
       authorities nor the applicant produced adequate docu-             Creus Carreras, Begoña Uriarte Valiente and Albert Augustinoy
       mentary evidence of the environmental aims underlying             Guilayn, avocats.
       the grant of the aid in question.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      Breach of the principle of sound administration, in so far        —     annul Articles 3(d) and 5 of the Commission Regulation
       as the Commission:                                                      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
       —     decided to open the formal procedure when this was                conditions for the control of activities of fishing vessels
             not permissible;                                                  (OJ 2001 L 159, p. 4);
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
       —     failed to choose the correct legal basis (whether
             under ECSC or EC law) for evaluating the aid;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
       —     constantly altered the reasons given for first suppos-
             ing and then confirming that the aid granted was            The applicant’s activities are concentrated on fishing for
             incompatible with the common market;                        whiting, with only incidental by-catches of hake, in the areas
                                                                         in which the contested regulation is applicable.
       —     conducted the investigation on the basis of the 1994
             environmental legislation but, upon the conclusion          In support of its application, the applicant pleads violation of
             of that enquiry, adopted a decision on the basis of         the principles of proportionality and of equality and a failure
             more recent legislation (the 2001 rules).                   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-
It is also submitted that:                                               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.
—      the aid was evaluated in arbitrary fashion as regards
       the benefits of the Ferriere investment in the working