Action brought on 11 May 2007 - Atlantic Dawn and Others v Commission

(Case T-172/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Atlantic Dawn Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland), Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland), Atlantean Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland), Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland), Doyle Fishing Co. Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland), Western Seaboard Fishing Co. Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland), O'Shea Fishing Co. Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland), Aine Fishing Co. Ltd (Burtonport, Ireland), Brendelen Ltd (Lifford, Ireland), Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd (Lifford, Ireland), Ocean Trawlers Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland), Eileen Oglesby (Burtonport, Ireland), Noel McGing (Killybegs, Ireland), Mullglen Ltd (Balbriggan, Ireland), Bradan Fishing Co. Ltd (Sligo, Ireland), Larry Murphy (Castletownbere, Ireland), Pauric Conneelly (Claregalway, Ireland), Thomas Flaherty (Kilronan, Ireland), Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland), Colmcille Fishing Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland) (represented by: D. Barry, Solicitor, G. Hogan, SC, N. Travers and T. O'Sullivan, Barristers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicants respectfully request the Court to:

Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 of 15 February 2007 adapting certain fish quotas from 2007 to 2012 pursuant to Article 23(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy; in the alternative

annul Article 1 of and Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 of 15 February 2007 adapting certain fish quotas from 2007 to 2012 pursuant to Article 23(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy in so far and to the extent that the said provisions reduce the quota allocated to Ireland for mackerel (Scomber scombrus) for the years 2007 to 2012;

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application, the applicants seek pursuant to Article 230 EC, the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 of 15 February 2007 adapting certain fish quotas from 2007 to 2012 pursuant to Article 23(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy¹.

The applicants submit that the contested regulation should be invalidated on the basis of four grounds:

First, the applicants claim that the Commission lacked power to adopt the contested regulation reducing quotas in 2007 to 2012 on the basis of Article 23(4) of Council Regulation 2371/2002.

In the alternative, the applicants submit that should the Court conclude that the Commission was empowered to effect quota deductions for several years into the future on the basis of historic over-fishing, the Commission has allegedly misused its power in this case. In fact, the applicants contend that the Commission has not established that the Member States concerned by the contested regulation, namely, Ireland and the United Kingdom, have exceeded the fishing opportunities allocated to them, as required by Article 23(4) of the said regulation for deduction of quotas. Moreover, the applicants maintain that the Commission's sudden change of its established policy of deducting quotas on a "previous year basis" departing from the wording and derived practice of Article 5 of Council Regulation 874/96, has breached the principle of legitimate expectations.

Furthermore, the applicants claim that the Commission failed to provide reasons motivating its decision as required by Article 253 EC. On this basis, they submit that the contested regulation is inadequately reasoned, in particular, since it represents a clear and radical shift of policy with seriously adverse implications for the applicants.

Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission has acted in breach of the principle of equal treatment by not taking measures equivalent to those contained in the contested regulation against any other fishing fleet, in circumstances where significant over-fishing of similarly threatened fish stock was reported.

____________

¹ - OJ L 46, 16.2.2007, p. 10