Action brought on 29 September 2015 — Federcaccia della Regione and Others v Commission
(Case T-570/15)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicants: Federcaccia della Regione Liguria (Genoa, Italy), Matteo Anfossi (Taggia, Italy), Associazione dei Migratoristi Italiani per la conservazione dell’ambiente naturale (ANUU) — LIGURIA (Genoa, Italy), Alessio Piana (Cremolino, Italy), Giovanno Bordo (Bargagli, Italy), Maria Teresa Esposito (Bargagli, Italy), Ezio Giacomo Isola (Davagna, Italy), Luca Fossardi (Recco, Italy), Adriano Zanni (Valbrevenna, Italy), Luigi Marco Tiscornia (Ne, Italy), Andrea Campanile (Cassano Spinola, Italy) (represented by: A. Bruni, A. Mozzati and P. Balletti, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
declare that the European Commission has intentionally or negligently failed to examine the preliminary Key Concepts data acquired from Italy relating to the beginning of the pre-mating migration of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares as compared with the same data acquired from France, thereby evading moreover the obligation to produce resulting transnational data relating to those three migratory species in geographically and climatically homogenous areas;
declare that the European Commission has intentionally or negligently failed to update the Italian Key Concepts data relating to the beginning of the pre-mating migration of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares, adjusting and aligning them to the French data found to be correct and legitimate, and recognising that the beginning of the pre-mating migration of those three species takes place in the second period of ten days in February also in Italy;
declare that the European Commission, in the absence of valid and correct conditions, sought the introduction in Italy, and in particular in Liguria, of unjustified limitations on the hunting of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares as compared to that consented to in France and in particular in Corsica and the South of France, bringing forward to 20 January in Liguria the end of the hunt for those three migrating species;
declare unlawful, on the grounds of unequal treatment between Member States and/or Regions of the Member States and also lack of valid conditions, the procedure EU PILOT 6955/14/ENVI brought by the European Commission exclusively against the Italian State since it did not bring an identical and concurrent action against France and did not carry out any preliminary investigation aimed at acquiring congruent elements from which it can concluded that the effective beginning of the pre-mating migration of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares is to be deferred by one month (20 February) in Corsica and the South of France compared to the beginning of the same pre-mating migration in Liguria (20 January);
declare unlawful the European Commission’s initial and continued inaction in respect of the applicants’ warning letter of 29 May 2015 by which the applicants assert and declare at the same time that the European Commission’s response in the letter No ENV.D.2/MC-GM/vf/ARES (2015) 3758354 of 9 September 2015 was elusive;
direct the European Commission to adjust the Italian Key Concepts data relating to the beginning of the pre-mating migration of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares in line with the Key Concepts data from France, thereby recognising that it takes place in the second period of ten days in February;
in any event, direct the European Commission to adjust the Italian Key Concepts data relating to the beginning of the pre-mating migration in Tuscany of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares in line with the French Key Concepts data relating to Corsica, recognising that it takes place in the second period of ten days in February;
order the European Commission, in respect of its omissive and inadequate action, to pay compensation for the harm suffered and to be suffered by the applicant hunting associations, also at the Court’s discretion, in so far as may be held to be fair.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-562/15.
____________