Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 14 March 2008 - Atlantean v Commission

(Case T-125/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Atlantean Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland) (represented by: M. Fraser, Solicitor, G. Hogan, E. Regan and C. Toland, Barristers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

order the defendant to make good to the applicant damages caused to it by Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 insofar as it unlawfully rejected the request by Ireland to increase the capacity of the vessel MFV Atlantean, the said damages amounting to EUR 7 419 522, subject to updating in the course of proceedings, together with interest from the 4 April 2003 until the final settlement and default interest in the event of delay, after delivery of the judgment, in payment of the sums awarded;

order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for non-contractual liability arising from the losses it claims to have suffered as a result of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 which provided for the rejection of the request by Ireland in respect of the applicant's vessel Atlantean to increase capacity under the fourth multi-annual guidance programme (MAGP IV) applicable for the reasons of improvements in safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall¹. This decision was annulled by the Court's judgment of 13 June 2006 in so far as it applied to the applicant's vessel Atlantean².

The applicant states in support of its contentions that in adopting the annulled decision the Commission breached a number of superior rules of law: it not only lacked the competence to make the decision, as found by the Court in its judgment, but it also infringed the principle of legal certainty, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of non-retroactivity, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of proportionality, its obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC, the right of the applicant to be heard and it misused its powers. The applicant also states that the Commission was manifestly and gravely in disregard of the limits of its discretion. It claims that in such circumstances, the mere infringement of Community law establishes a sufficiently serious breach of law.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that it has suffered and continues to suffer substantial loss and damage as a direct consequence of the Commission adopting the annulled decision as it was required to purchase additional polyvalent replacement capacity. Therefore, the applicant claims that its damage is actual and certain.

____________

¹ - OJ 2003 L 90, p.48

² - Case T-192/03, Atlantean Ltd. v Commission [2006] ECR II-42