CELEX: C1996/077/37
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 25 January 1996 by Area Cova, SA and Others against the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union (Case T-12/96)

16 . 3 . 96            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 77/ 17
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             Pontevedra, Spain ), Asociación Nacional de Armadores de
— annul the decision of the Commission of 21 March
                                                                         Buques ( whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra,
                                                                         Spain), Congeladores de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer) ( whose
      1995, in so far as it fixes Brussels as the applicant's place      registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Asociación
     of recruitment and place of origin, together with all               Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores de
     decisions subsequently adopted on the basis thereof,                Pesquerías Varias ( Anavar ) (whose registered office is in
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ) and the Asociación de Sociedades
                                                                         Pesqueras Españolas (ASPE ) (whose registered office is in
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ) represented by Antonio Creus
                                                                         Carreras and Xavier Ruiz Calzado, of the Barcelona Bar,
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
in Case T-33/95 Lozano Palacios v. Commission of the                     and by Bonifacio García Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, with
European Communities.
                                                                         an address for service at 78 Avenue d'Auderghem,
                                                                         Brussels .
                                                                         The applicant claims that the court should :
Action brought on 25 January 1996 by Area Cova, SA                       — annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2565/95 of
and Others against the Commission of the European                             30 October 1995 concerning the stopping of fishing for
  Communities and the Council of the European Union                           Greenland halibut by vessels flying the flag of a Member
                                                                              State inasmuch as it prohibits fishing for Greenland
                          ( Case T-12/96 )                                    halibut in the waters of NAFO zones 2 and 3 by vessels
                            ( 96/C 77/37 )                                   flying the flag of a Member State or registered in a
                                                                             Member State, as well as the retention on board, the
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                              transhipment and the landing of such stock captured by
                                                                             the abovementioned vessels after the date of entry into
An action against the Commission of the European                              force of that Regulation,
Communities and the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               — declare Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1761/95 of 29 June
Communities on 25 January 1996 by Area Cova, SA ( whose                       1995 amending, for the second time, Regulation ( EC )
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Armadora                  No 3366/94 laying down for 1995 certain conservation
Jose Pereira, SA ( whose registered office is in Vigo,                       and management measures for fishery resources in the
Pontevedra, Spain ), Armadores Pesqueros de Aldan, SA                        Regulatory Area as defined in the Convention on Future
(whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),                    Multilateral Cooperation in the North-west Atlantic
Centropesca, SA ( whose registered office is in Vigo,                         Fisheries, inapplicable inasmuch as it establishes the
Pontevedra, Spain ), Chymar, SA (whose registered office is                  quota for Greenland halibut for the Community fleet in
in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Eloymar, SA ( whose registered                 NAFO areas 3 LMNO at 5 013 tonnes, modifying the
office is in Estribela, Pontevedra, Spain ), Exfaumar, SA                    autonomous quota of 18 630 tonnes established by
(whose registered office is in Bueu, Pontevedra, Spain ),                     Regulation ( EC ) No 850/95 and in so far as it is the basis
Farpespan, SL (whose registered office is in Moaña,                           for Regulation ( EC) No 2565/95 ,
Pontevedra, Spain ), Freiremar, SA ( whose registered office is         — declare the Bilateral Agreement on Fisheries between the
in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Hermanos Gandón, SA ( whose                    European Community and the Government of Canada,
registered office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain), Heroya,                   signed on 20 April 1995 in the context of the NAFO
SA (whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),                  Convention, inapplicable in so far as it establishes a
Hiopesca, SA (whose registered office is in Vigo,                            quota for catches of Greenland halibut for the
Pontevedra, Spain ), Jose Pereira e Hijos, SA (whose                          Community fleet of 5 013 tonnes as from 16 April 1995 ,
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Juana Oya                 which is below the autonomous quota established
Perez ( whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),              by Regulation ( EC ) No 850/95 , and in so far as it is the
Manuel Nores Gonzalez (whose registered office is in                          basis for the abovementioned Regulation ( EC ) No
Marin, Pontevedra, Spain ), Moradiña, SA (whose registered                    1761 /95 ,
office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain ), Navales Cerdeiras,
SL (whose registered office is in Camariñas, La Coruña,                  — order the Commission and/or the Council to pay all the
Spain), Nugago Pesca, SA ( whose registered office is in                     costs of the proceedings.
Bueu, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquera Austral, SA ( whose                  Pleas in law and main arguments:
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pescaberbés,
SA (whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),             The applicant companies in the present case, owners of the
Pesquerías Bígaro Narval, SA ( whose registered office is in             36 Spanish freezer trawlers authorized to catch Greenland
Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquera Cíes, SA ( whose                     halibut in NAFO waters in areas 2 and 3 , according to the
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra , Spain ), Pesca                fishing plans approved by the Spanish administrative
Herculina, SA (whose registered office is in Vigo,                       authorities for 1995 , challenge the lawfulness of Regulation
Pontevedra, Spain), Pesquera Inter, SA (whose registered                 (EC) No 1761 /95 and the Bilateral Agreement on Fisheries
office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquerías                     between the European Community and Canada inasmuch
Marinenses, SA (whose registered office is in Marin,                     as it establishes a quota as from 16 April 1995 for Greenland
Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquerías Tara, SA (whose registered               halibut for the Community fleet which is less than the quota
office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquera Vaqueiro,             established by Regulation ( EC ) No 850/95 . The pleas in law
SA (whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain),              relied upon with regard to infringement are analogous with
Sotelo Dios, SA (whose registered office is in Vigo,                     those in Case T-l 94/95 (*).
 ---pagebreak--- No C 77/ 18        1 EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16 . 3 . 96
As regards Regulation ( EC ) No 2565/95 , the applicants, in           Government of Biscay of the other part. By the contested
seeking its annulment, claim, first of all, that it does not state     decision, the Commission considered that the new
reasons as required by Article 190 of the EC Treaty and,               agreement, which runs from 1995 to 1998 , does not
secondly, that Article 155 of the EC Treaty has been                   constitute State aid .
infringed since the Commission, which is entrusted with
safeguarding the rule of law in the Community, was aware               The applicant claims, first, that the Commission disregarded
of the unlawfulness of the basis of Regulation ( EC ) No               the principle audi alteram partem in deciding to terminate
1671 /95 , it should not have proceeded to adopt a                     the procedure laid down in Article 93 ( 2 ) without giving the
Regulation in implementation thereof.                                  complainant the opportunity to submit comments . It points
                                                                       out in that connection that at no time during the procedure
(>) OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 , p . 22 .                            was it informed that a new agreement had been drawn up
                                                                       and concluded between the Spanish authorities and Ferries
                                                                       Golfo de Vizcaya, an agreement of whose content it is a
                                                                       fortiori unaware; it was therefore unable to submit
                                                                       observations on the new agreement.
                                                                       The applicant also considers that the contested decision
Action brought on 1 February 1996 by Societe Bretagne                  does not satisfy the requirement under Article 190 of the EC
Angleterre Irlande (BAI ) againt the Commission of the                 Treaty to state the reasons on which it is based, since it does
                  European Communities                                 not permit the parties concerned to know the reasons which
                        ( Case T-14/96 )                               led the Commission to consider that the new agreement does
                          ( 96/C 77/38 )
                                                                       not constitute State aid or permit the Community judicature
                                                                       to exercise judicial review. The applicant adds that in
                                                                       addition to the obviously inadequate statement of reasons,
               (Language of the case: French)                          the contested decision contains manifest errors .
An action against the Commission of the European                       Secondly, the applicant claims that the agreement concluded
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      under the aegis of the Commission favours Ferries Golfo de
Instance of the European Communities on 1 February 1996                Vizcaya because it concerns either a Spanish or Basque
by Bretagne Angleterre Irlande ( Brittany Ferries ), a                 undertaking, or an undertaking having its registered office
company whose registered office is in Roscoff ( France ),              in Spain or the Basque country. By allowing and ratifying
represented by Jean-Michel Payre, of the Paris Bar, with an            such discrimination, however considerable the ensuing
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   obstacle to freedom to provide services , the Commission has
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue,                                              infringed Article 6 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
                                                                       Articles 3f and 92 ( 1 ).
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 92 ( 1 ) of
                                                                       the EC Treaty, pointing out that massive buying of Ferries
— annul the Commission's decision in State Aid C 32/93 ,               Golfo de Vizcaya transport vouchers by the Spanish
    published in the Official Journal of the European                  authorities strengthens that company's position and the
     Communities on 1 December 1995 ( OJ No C 321 ,                    question of the financial profitability or otherwise of the
    P - 4 ),                                                           ferry service thus guaranteed is irrelevant, contrary to what
                                                                       is stated in the contested decision .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant, a French shipping company which has for
many years operated a ferry shipping line between the ports            Action brought on 1 February 1996 by Lino Liao against the
of Plymouth ( England ) and Santander ( Spain ), states that on                       Council of the European Union
21 September 1992 it lodged a complaint with the
Commission concerning an agreement concluded between                                          ( Case T-15/96 )
the shipping company Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya SA on the                                          ( 96/C 77/39 )
one hand and the Regional Government of Biscay
( Diputacion Foral de Vizcaya ) and the Ministry of
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
Commerce and Tourism of the Basque Government
( Gobierno Vasco ) on the other. The Commission decided to
initiate the procedure laid down in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC         An action against the Council of the European Union was
Treaty, since it considered that various aspects of the                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
agreement seemed to indicate a special relationship                    Communities on 1 February 1995 by Lino Liao, residing in
involving State aid. In response to the initiation of the              Brussels, represented by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and
Article 93 (2 ) procedure, the agreement at issue was                  Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
suspended and a new agreement concluded between Ferries                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz,
Golfo de Vizcaya of the one part and the Regional                      2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .