CELEX: C2001/245/35
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-125/01: Action brought on 8 June 2001 by José Martí Peix against Commission of the European Communities

1.9.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/21
Action brought on 8 June 2001 by José Martı́ Peix against                2.   In the alternative, if the Court of First Instance should
         Commission of the European Communities                               take the view that there in nothing in the applicable
                                                                              Community legislation to indicate that the time-limit has
                                                                              expired, the applicant claims that the decision implies
                         (Case T-125/01)                                      that there has been a lack of administrative diligence,
                                                                              since the applicant is now bereft of judicial protection
                                                                              and legal certainty and its legitimate expectations have
                         (2001/C 245/35)                                      been dashed and the basic principles enshrined in the
                                                                              Community’s case-law have been disregarded.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              Likewise, the time which has elapsed between the facts
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              complained of by the Commission took place and the
European Communities on 8 June 2001 by José Martı́ Peix,
                                                                              date on which the contested decision was adopted leads
residing in Huelva (Spain), represented by Ramón Garcı́a-
                                                                              to the conclusion that the institution has exceeded the
Gallardo and Marı́a Dolores Domı́nguez Pérez.
                                                                              reasonable period in which to adopt a decision so
                                                                              detrimental to the interests of the applicant. In particular,
                                                                              instead of initiating a procedure for reduction immedi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   ately after the applicant informed it of the facts in the
                                                                              context of the Regular Activity Reports, the Commission
                                                                              took no action whatsoever and allowed nearly six years
—     uphold the present application;                                         to elapse.
—     annul Commission Decision C(2001)679 final of
      19 March 2001, reducing aid granted to José Martı́ Peix
      SA by Commission Decision C(91)2474 of 16 December                 3.   In the event that the Court should find that the Com-
      1991, amended by Commission Decision C(93)1131                          mission adopted the decision within a reasonable time,
      final/4 of 12 May 1993, for a project relating to the                   the applicant submits that that decision is null and void
      setting-up of a mixed company in the fishing sector                     as regards the substance on the following grounds:
      (SM/ESP/17/91);
—     make any other order as appropriate requiring the
      Commission of the European Communities to comply                        —     with regard to one of the vessels, which sank,
      with its obligations under Article 233 EC and, in particu-                    inasmuch as the withdrawal of assistance was
      lar, to re-examine the situation;                                             decided upon after an error of assessment was
                                                                                    committed, since the Commission states that it was
                                                                                    the recipient of ‘false information’, which is not true.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                           Moreover, the Commission bases its decision on the
      pay the costs.                                                                obligation to replace the lost vessel, an obligation
                                                                                    which was not written into the legislation applicable
                                                                                    at the time;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              —     so far as concerns the remaining vessels, the Com-
By this application the applicants seek the annulment of a                          mission penalises the failure to communicate their
decision taken by the Commission reducing the financial                             departure from the waters of the country referred to
assistance granted to a project relating to the setting-up of a                     in the decision granting the assistance, a merely
mixed company in the fishing sector. The applicant claims                           administrative requirement, while disregarding the
that the decision is null and void inasmuch as the alleged                          fact that the aforementioned vessels continue to
irregularities found by the Commission do not exist. The                            operate under the aegis of another mixed company
applicant bases itself on four grounds:                                             and continue to pursue the objects which prompted
                                                                                    the creation of that company.
1.    The applicant claims that the decision is null and void
      since, at the time when it was adopted, it was out of time
      in order to base its reduction of aid on the facts. Indeed,
      the Commission has failed to take any administrative
      action at all on the case and has reduced the assistance
      only after the statutory time-limit.