Action brought on 11 August 2008 - Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-305/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: F. Arena, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 48 °W, and in the Mediterranean Sea, published in Official Journal L 155 of 13 June 2008, in so far as it bans, as from 16 June 2008, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 48 °W, and in the Mediterranean Sea by vessels flying the Italian flag and prohibits those vessels from retaining on board, placing in cages for fattening or farming, transhipping, transferring or landing bluefin tuna stock.

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Government challenges before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in Official Journal L 155 of 13 June 2008, which establishes emergency measures as regards fishing for bluefin tuna by purse seiners in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 48 ° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea.

The challenge is based on five grounds:

By its first ground, the applicant submits that no adequate reasons whatsoever are given for the contested regulation, in so far as the statement that fishing opportunities for the Italian fleet would be exhausted on 16 June 2008 is not supported any argument other than a simple reference to a number of unspecified data in the Commission's possession and to the content (equally unknown) of reports by its own inspectors.

By its second ground, the applicant alleges misuse of power, contending that the Commission adopted the emergency measure provided for in Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, not because the conditions set out in that provision were satisfied but for the different purpose of taking action in relation to an alleged failure on the part of the Member State to fulfil a number of its obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007.

The third ground alleges infringement of Articles 7 and 26 of Regulation No 2371/2002 in so far as, according to the applicant, the facts as alleged by the Commission would have permitted, at most, measures to be adopted pursuant to Article 26 of that regulation (in compliance with the procedure laid down in that provision) but not Article 7.

By its fourth ground, the applicant submits that the contested measure is vitiated on account of a distortion of the facts in that it is apparent from information forwarded by the Italian authorities to the Commission that, even after the date on which the contested regulation was adopted, the quantity of bluefin tuna fished by vessels flying the Italian flag was less than 50% of the quota allocated, so that the alleged factual circumstances on which the disputed measure is based (the fishing opportunities for the Italian fishing fleet had been exhausted) have no basis.

By its fifth and final ground, the applicant complains of failure to state the reasons for the alleged infringements of Regulation No 1559/2007, which are also stated to have occurred in general terms in the contested measure, without any indication being given as to the precise nature of those infringements or any evidence on the basis of which it is claimed that the applicant Member State failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation.

____________