Action brought on 30 October 2023 – Bloom v Commission
(Case T-1049/23)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Bloom (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Lafforgue, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul the decision of the European Commission of 30 August 2023 rejecting the request for internal review, for the purposes of Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation, in respect of the letter of the European Commission of 5 April 2023 by which the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries informed the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (‘the IOTC’) that the European Union was submitting an objection to Resolution 23/02 On the management of drifting Fish Aggregating Devices (‘FADs’) in the IOTC area of competence, pursuant to Article IX(5) of the Agreement for the establishment of the IOTC;
order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by the European Commission. The applicant argues that the letter of objection which is the subject matter of the request for review is an act capable of being the subject matter of a request for review and constitutes an infringement of European Union environment law.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the precautionary principle. The applicant argues that the use of drifting FADs is one of the main causes of unwanted catches, whether of non-target species or of juveniles of target species. Consequently, IOTC Resolution 23/02, which foresees closing the use of FADs for 72 days, constituted the most appropriate solution for curbing the overfishing of stocks and for allowing them to recover.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. 1 According to the applicant, the permitted margin of tolerance in estimates recorded in the fishing logbook of the quantities in kilograms of fish retained on board is 10% for all species. Failure to comply with that margin of tolerance is to a great extent due directly to the use of drifting FADs. The use of drifting FADs leads to a rise in bycatches of non-target species or juveniles, in particular of yellow fin tuna and bigeye tuna. Since the juveniles of those two species are similar, tuna fishing vessels cannot declare their catches by species and thus cannot ensure compliance with the margin of tolerance of 10%.
____________
1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1).