CELEX: 62014CN0164
Language: en
Date: 2014-04-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-164/14 P: Appeal brought on 4 April 2014 by Pesquerias Riveirenses, S.L. and Others against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2014 in Case T-180/13 Pesquerías Riveirenses and Others v Council

26.5.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 159/21
            
         Appeal brought on 4 April 2014 by Pesquerias Riveirenses, S.L. and Others against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2014 in Case T-180/13 Pesquerías Riveirenses and Others v Council
   (Case C-164/14 P)
   2014/C 159/28
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Pesquerias Riveirenses, S.L., Pesquera Campo de Marte, S.L., Pesquera Anpajo, S.L., Arrastreros del Barbanza, S.A., Martinez Pardavila e Hijos, S.L., Lijo Pesca, S.L., Frigorificos Hermanos Vidal, S.A., Pesquera Boteira, S.L., Francisco Mariño Mos y Otros, C.B., Juan Antonio Pérez Vidal y Hermano, C.B., Marina Nalda, S.L., Portillo y Otros, S.L., Vidiña Pesca, S.L., Pesca Hermo, S.L., Pescados Oubiña Perez, S.L., Manuel Pena Graña, Campo Eder, S.L., Pesquera Laga, S.L., Pesquera Jalisco, S.L., Pesquera Jopitos, S.L., Pesca-Julimar, S.L. (represented by: J. Tojeiro Sierto, abogado)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   Set aside the order of the General Court declaring the applicants’ action for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 (1) inadmissible, and give a fresh ruling declaring the action admissible.
   
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellants are directly concerned — breach of Article 263 TFEU
   The fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU states that ‘any natural or legal person may ... institute proceedings ... against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures’. To that effect, direct concern and the lack of implementing measures are two different requirements; the question of state discretion, essential in determining whether the disputed act is of direct concern, is by contrast irrelevant when determining whether the national act may be considered an ‘implementing measure’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
   The applicants consider that, as owners of fishing vessels dedicated to the catch of blue whiting, they are clearly directly concerned by the regulation establishing and limiting the catch of that species. Management of blue whiting stock is carried out annually by the EU through the TAC (total allowable catch); in the applicants’ opinion, the establishment of those TAC is incorrect because it does not take account of the latest scientific recommendations. Accordingly managing blue whiting as a single stock and not as two different stocks causes the total allowable catch to be less than that to which the applicants should be entitled if the stock were managed separately in the North zone and the South zone. Following the establishment of that TAC, States may not subsequently intervene in the allocation of fishing rights or in the management method used for their allocation since that method rests on the TAC initially established by the EU and therefore the only option or alternative open to the applicants to express their disagreement with the TAC and the method by which it was established or by which the fishery is managed is to bring proceedings before the European Courts.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (OJ 2013 L 23, p. 54).