Notice for the OJ
Action brought on 24 March 2005 by Lootus Teine Osaühing against the Council of the European Union
(Case T-127/05)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 March 2005 by Lootus Teine Osaühing, established in Tartu (Estonia), represented by T. Sild and K. Martin, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
- annul the annex to Council Regulation (EC) No. 2269/2004 of 20 December 2004 amending Regulations (EC) Nos 2340/2002 and 2347/2002 as concerns fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 20041, as regards fishing opportunities allocated to Estonia;
- annul Part 2 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) no. 2270/20042 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 and 2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks, as regards fishing opportunities allocated to Estonia;
- order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an Estonian fishing company which practises deep sea fishing in the area of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Convention. Estonia was a party to that Convention prior to its accession to the European Union. Article 6(9) of the Act of Accession of Estonia and the other new Member States to the European Union3 provides that as from the date of accession, fisheries agreements concluded by the new Member States shall be managed by the Community and that the rights and obligations resulting for the new Member States from those agreements shall not be affected during the period in which the provisions of those agreements are provisionally maintained. It is in this context that the contested measures were issued, allocating Estonia fishing opportunities, measured in metric tons of allowable catch of certain stocks in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
According to the applicant these allocations constitute only a fraction of what Estonia legally harvested before accession. On this basis the applicant contends that the contested measures violated Article 6(9) of the Act of Accession as well as the principle of proportionality, and should therefore be annulled.
____________1 - OJ L 396, 31/12/200 p. 1 2 - OJ L 396, 31/12/200 p. 3 - OJ L 236, 23/09/2003