CELEX: C2000/176/05
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-50/00 P: Appeal brought on 16 February 2000 against the judgment delivered on 23 November 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-173/98 between Unión de Pequeños Agricultores and Council of the European Union

24.6.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 176/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     Appeal brought on 16 February 2000 against the judg-
                                                                            ment delivered on 23 November 1999 by the Third
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                   Communities in Case T-173/98 between Unión de
                                                                            Pequeños Agricultores and Council of the European
                                                                                                          Union
                          of 13 April 2000
                                                                                                     (Case C-50/00 P)
in Case C-274/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                                                      (2000/C 176/05)
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 November
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                       Directive 91/676/EEC)                                the European Communities in Case T-173/98 between Unión
                                                                            de Pequeños Agricultores and Council of the European was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                           (2000/C 176/04)                                  ties on 16 February 2000 by the Unión de Pequeños Agricul-
                                                                            tores, represented by Javier Ledesma Bartret and José Jiménez
                                                                            Laiglesia Oñate, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                            care of Concepción Llaser Moyano, 22 Rue Wenkelhiel,
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                         L-5680 Dalheim.
                                                                            The appellant claims that the Court should:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          1. Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                 23 November 1999 in Case T-173/98;
In Case C-274/98: Commission of the European Communities                    2. Pursuant to Article 55 of the Statute of the Court of Justice
(Agents: E. Gippini Fournier and F. de Sousa Fialho) v Kingdom                   of the EC declare admissible the main action brought on
of Spain (Agent: M. López-Monı́s Gallego) — application for a                   20 October 1998 by the appellant and refer the case back
declaration that by failing to establish action programmes                       to the Court of First Instance for judgment on the merits
pursuant to Article 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of                         of the case.
12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
(OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1; corrigendum to the Spanish version in
OJ 1993 L 92, p. 51), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil             Pleas in law and main arguments
its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. Hirsch, V. Skouris and                     Irregular procedure and breach of Community law:
F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in
which it:                                                                   — the order misunderstands and misinterprets the arguments
                                                                                 submitted by the appellant in so far as it relies on the
                                                                                 fundamental right to effective judicial protection. There
1. Declares that by not establishing the action programmes referred              was no justification for infringing the appellant’s funda-
    to in Article 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December               mental right to effective judicial protection as a result of
    1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution                   declaring its action inadmissible despite the ‘non-existence’
    caused by nitrates from agricultural sources the Kingdom of                  of an internal remedy, whereas, in the instant case, the
    Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;              finding of inadmissibility in the appellant’s view does not
                                                                                 meet the requirement of ‘effectiveness’ required by the
                                                                                 fundamental right relied upon.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                            — the grounds for the order are inadequate as regards
                                                                                 the appellant’s line of reasoning so far as concerns its
                                                                                 fundamental right to effective judicial protection, and it
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                        again misunderstands the arguments put forward by the
                                                                                 appellant.
                                                                            — the grounds of the order are contradictory with regard to
                                                                                 the consideration of the principle of right to a fair hearing.
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/4                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.6.2000
— the order infringes the fundamental right of the appellant             Pleas in law and main arguments
     to effective judicial protection as a general principle of
     Community law and the very system of remedies estab-
     lished in the Treaties. The appellant does not plead the            Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (2):
     system of remedies established in the Treaty in the present
     case, but rather that the contested order failed to make any
     analysis as to the effectiveness of the fundamental right           — According to the Kingdom of Spain, the contested pro-
     relied upon in its action. Such failure to take this into                vision violates the principle of relative stability, and that
     account and the decision in the order that the duty to                   issue was not resolved in the judgment delivered on
     safeguard the effectiveness of judicial protection is a matter           5 October 1999 in Case C-179/95 Spain v Council.
     for the judicial systems of the Member States amounts to a
     breach of the system of remedies laid down in the former
     Article 173 of the Treaty. By misapplying the principle of          — The Kingdom of Spain considers that Article 9 of Regu-
     the duty to cooperate in good faith incumbent on the                     lation No 3760/92 is not applicable to a measure such as
     Member States, the order transfers to the latter the duty to             that contested, for the following reasons:
     apply a fundamental right in the context of Article 173 of
     the Treaty, fails to take account of the fact that the                   (1) the exchanges of quotas authorised by Article 9 of
     appellant claimed at first instance that its fundamental                      Regulation No 3760/92 must accord with the prin-
     rights had been infringed by the contested measure, fails                     ciples of the common fisheries policy and of Com-
     to mention that the remaining rights relied upon by the                       munity legislation, which include the principle of
     appellant may only be protected before the Community                          relative stability;
     judicature and, finally, does not state that the duty of the
     Community judicature is to ascertain whether Community
     acts are valid in accordance with fundamental rights.                    (2) in accordance with the abovementioned Article 9,
                                                                                   exchanges of fishing availabilities are a matter falling
                                                                                   within the competence of the Member States, which
                                                                                   are required only to notify the Commission of them; in
                                                                                   the present case, however, it is the Council that has
                                                                                   decided that 3 000 tonnes may be fished by Portugal
                                                                                   in waters of the Bay of Biscay and that they may be
                                                                                   subsequently ceded to France;
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Kingdom of                              (3) although the legal basis of Council Regulation No
      Spain against the Council of the European Union                              685/95 on the management of the fishing effort
                                                                                   relating to certain Community fishing areas and
                                                                                   resources is clearly Article 43 of the EC Treaty (now
                           (Case C-81/00)                                          Article 37 EC), that does not mean that the Council
                                                                                   may use that regulation in order to disregard the
                                                                                   principles established in the basic fisheries regulation
                          (2000/C 176/06)                                          (that is to say, Regulation No 3760/92), in particular
                                                                                   the principle of relative stability.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             — The contested provision, which has no scientific basis
ties on 7 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented                     whatever, gives rise to a de facto alteration to the TAC
by Rosario Silva, de Lapuerta, acting as Agent, with an address               fixed for the year 2000 in respect of anchovies, reducing it
for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6                         to 16 000 tonnes in ICES zone VIII from a figure of
Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.                                                   19 000. In so doing, it infringes Regulation No 3760/92,
                                                                              since, instead of achieving the objective of rational and
                                                                              responsible exploitation of the available resources, it results
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   in over-fishing of a species such as the anchovy in ICES
                                                                              zone VIII.
— annul the point relating to anchovies referred to in note
     (2) to the item relating to stocks of ‘Anchovy; Zone: IX, X,
     CECAF 34.1.1’ contained in Annex I D to Council
     Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 (1) of 17 December 1999                (1) OJ L 341 of 31.12.1999, p. 1.
     fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated            (2) Establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
     conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks,           (OJ L 389 of 31.12.1992, p. 1, with corrigendum in OJ L 92 of
     applicable in Community waters and, for Community                       16.4.1993, p. 51).
     vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required
     and amending Regulation (EC) No 66/98;
— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.