CELEX: C2001/245/34
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-119/01: Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pescanova SA against Commission of the European Communities

C 245/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         1.9.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pescanova SA against                           lay down any procedure for reducing or recovering
         Commission of the European Communities                                 assistance granted to joint companies set up in accordance
                                                                                with the Agreement, neither does it refer to any Com-
                                                                                munity legislation providing for such procedure. More-
                          (Case T-119/01)                                       over, the Commission has not specified at any time
                                                                                throughout the procedure what actual provisions of the
                                                                                EC/Argentina Agreement or conditions laid down in the
                         (2001/C 245/34)                                        decision granting the assistance it considers to have been
                                                                                infringed by the applicant. The applicant takes the view
                                                                                that there has been no infringement of any of the
                                                                                provisions of the EC/Argentina Agreement or of the
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                              decision granting the assistance and the contested
                                                                                decision must be annulled on the ground that the
                                                                                Commission erred in its assessment of an infringement
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       for which there is no legal basis.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 June 2001 by Pescanova SA,
whose registered office is at Chapela, Pontevedra (Spain),               —      Breach of the principle of sound administration and of the
represented by Antonio Creus, Begoña Uriarte and Salvador                      rights of the defence: The Commission has taken no account
Rodrı́guez.                                                                     of the applicant’s complaints, which have been submitted
                                                                                to it on numerous occasions throughout the administrat-
                                                                                ive procedure.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —      Failure to provide a statement of reasons: First, the Com-
                                                                                mission does not mention in the contested decision what
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 19 March 2001 in
                                                                                provisions of applicable legislation it considers to have
      so far as it reduces the contribution granted to that
                                                                                been infringed. Secondly, neither does it mention the
      undertaking by way of Commission Decision C(94)
                                                                                facts which led the Orense to cease fishing in Argentinian
      3834/4 final of 21 December 1994 for a project relating
                                                                                waters, so that it did not set out the reasons why it
      to the setting up of a joint company in the fishing sector;
                                                                                considered that those facts could not be regarded as force
                                                                                majeure, capable of justifying the reduction of the amount
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    of the contribution to be repaid, nor did it set out the
                                                                                grounds on which it decided not to allow such reduction.
                                                                         —      Breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 expectations: The applicant could not in any event have
                                                                                imagined that the Commission would initiate a procedure
                                                                                to reduce the contribution, since such a procedure is not
The contested decision, which was adopted on the basis of                       provided for in the applicable legislation, not least in
Regulation No 4253/88 (1), in particular Article 24 thereof,                    view of the practice of the Commission at the time and
and on the basis of the EC/Argentina Agreement (2), finds that                  its lack of reaction when the company informed the
the Community contribution amounting to EUR 1 824 813                           Argentinian authorities that it was leaving Argentinian
granted in 1994 to the applicant is to be reduced to                            waters.
EUR 472 818 over three months, with effect from the date of
the decision. According to the decision, the reason for reducing
the contribution was that the fishing vessel Orense, which was
transferred to Argentina when the joint company was set up,              (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,
ceased to fish in Argentinian waters, without the prior                      laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
authorisation of the Commission, eighteen months after the                   No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
creation of the company, which is tantamount to a serious                    different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
change in the conditions laid down for the granting of the                   operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
assistance.                                                                  existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374. p. 1).
                                                                         (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3447/93 of 28 September 1993 on
                                                                             the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Economic
                                                                             Community and the Argentine Republic on relations in the sea
In support of its arguments seeking the annulment of the                     fisheries sector (OJ 1993 L 318, p. 1).
contested decision, the applicant claims:
—     Lack of legal basis: The contested decision lacks a proper
      legal basis, since the EC/Argentina Agreement does not