Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cathal Boyle against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-218/03)

    Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Cathal Boyle, Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety capacity application for a proposed new vessel to replace the MFV Marie Dawn.

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant sought to replace his fishing vessel with a new vessel, adding some distinct safety elements that required an increase of gross tonnage. The application for an increase in tonnage was submitted by Ireland to the European Commission, who rejected it in the contested decision¹.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes, in the first place, absence of power of the Commission. According to the applicant, the Commission's powers under Decision 97/413² concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries are limited. The applicant submits that Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 imposes an obligation on the Commission to determine applications for increases on a case-by-case basis and that the only issues the Commission may consider in making its decision are whether the increase in capacity results exclusively from safety improvements and whether it increases the fishing effort of the vessel. According to the applicant, the Commission therefore had no power under Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 to adopt certain other criteria referred to in Article 1 of the contested Decision.

The applicant furthermore invokes a breach of the duty to state reasons and a breach of the principle of equal treatment. In this last respect, the applicant submits that a difference appears to have been made between all applications for new replacement vessels and two applications for new replacement vessels for the "Angela" and "Pembroke".

____________

¹ - 2003/245/EC: Commission Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (notified under document number C(2003) 1113)(OJ L 90, p. 48)

² - 97/413/EC: Council Decision of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation (OJ L 175, p. 27)