CELEX: C2007/283/69
Language: en
Date: 2007-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-379/07: Action brought on 3 October 2007 — Poland v Commission

24.11.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 283/38
            
         Action brought on 3 October 2007 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-379/07)
   (2007/C 283/69)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: T. Nowakowski, Agent)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               declare invalid Commission Regulation (EC) No 804/2007 of 9 July 2007 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 25-32, EC Waters) by vessels flying the flag of Poland (1);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks a declaration that Commission Regulation (EC) No 804/2007 of 9 July 2007 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 25-32, EC Waters) by vessels flying the flag of Poland is invalid. The contested regulation provides that, as from 11 July 2007, the part of the catch quota for cod allocated to the applicant for 2007 in the Baltic Sea is deemed to have been exhausted and prohibits, for the period from 11 July 2007 to 31 December 2007, further fishing for cod in that area by vessels flying the Polish flag and the retention on board, transhipment or landing of cod caught by such vessels.
   In support of its contention, the applicant accuses the Commission of committing flagrant mistakes in calculating the quantities of cod landed by Polish fishing vessels and alleges a breach of Council Regulation (EC) No 1941/2006 of 11 December 2006 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2007 (2). In the context of the present head of complaint the applicant submits that the Commission based its findings in respect of the amounts of cod caught by Polish fishing vessels on data which, in the applicant's opinion, are arbitrary and unrepresentative, derived from inspections carried out by the Commission's own inspectors and in disregard of data from the Polish Sea Fishing Information System.
   The applicant further submits that the contested regulation infringes the principle of proportionality inasmuch as, in its view, the prohibition of catches which it introduces gives rise to fundamental unfavourable socio-economic effects which are significantly greater than the hypothetical advantages with regard to the conservation of cod stocks. The applicant accuses the Commission of foregoing an appraisal of those effects before it adopted the contested regulation and of failing to consider the possibility of attaining the objectives pursued by using means which would be less detrimental to the society and economy of maritime areas.
   In the grounds of its action the applicant also argues that the contested regulation is inadequately reasoned and that this, in its opinion, makes it impossible to verify the expediency and legality of the prohibition which it introduces.
   The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of solidarity and genuine cooperation, and criticises the Commission for failing to engage in dialogue and not making it possible for the applicant to clarify certain contentious issues before it adopted the contested regulation.
   The applicant concludes by contending that the contested regulation infringes the right freely to exercise an economic activity inasmuch as the prohibition of catches which it introduces affects persons who are unable in practical terms to alter the type of activity which they pursue and for whom fishing is their only means of subsistence, a fortiori as that prohibition is total and does not allow of any exceptions.
   
      (1)  OJ 2007 L 180, p. 3.
   
      (2)  OJ 2006 L 367, p. 1.