Action brought on 19 May 2011 - Spain v Commission

(Case T-260/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 165/2011 of 22 February 2011 providing for deductions from certain mackerel quotas allocated to Spain in 2011 and subsequent years on account of overfishing in 2010, and

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Annex to the contested regulation contains the penalty imposed on Spain for overfishing of mackerel in 2010 in zones VIIIc, IX and X in EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1, the quota being reduced by 39 242 tonnes, with reductions of 4 500 tonnes in 2011, 5 500 in 2012, 9 748 in 2013, 9 747 in 2014 and 9 747 in 2015 and 'where appropriate ... in subsequent years'.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

Infringement of Article 105(6) of 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 ('Regulation No 1224/2009'), in so far as the contested regulation was adopted before the Commission adopted the implementing regulation provided for in Article 105(6).

Infringement of an essential procedural requirement in that there was no Management Committee report, given that until now measures to punish Member States for exceeding their quotas were adopted by means of a Commission Regulation following a prior report by the Management Committee.

Infringement of the rights of the defence, since the contested regulation was adopted without the Kingdom of Spain having previously been heard.

Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as, in imposing the contested measure, the Commission left open the possibility of extending that penalty thereafter, over an unspecified number of years.

Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the contested regulation entered into force when the fishing year for mackerel had already begun.

Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that the Commission applied the test relating to socio-economic consequences differently from how it has applied it in other comparable situations.

____________