Area Cova, SA and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
CourtGeneral Court (European Union)
ECLIECLI:EU:T:2001:281
Date06 December 2001
Docket NumberT-196/99
Procedure TypeRecurso por responsabilidad - infundado
EUR-Lex - 61999A0196 - EN 61999A0196

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2001. - Area Cova, SA and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities. - Action for compensation - Non-contractual liability - Fisheries - Conservation of marine resources - Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-West Atlantic Fisheries - Greenland halibut - Catch quota allocated to the Community fleet. - Case T-196/99.

European Court reports 2001 Page II-03597


Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part

Keywords

1. Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Legislative measure involving choices of economic policy - Sufficiently serious breach of Community law - Meaning

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

2. Fisheries - Conservation of marine resources - System of fishing quotas - Allocation between Member States of the volume of available catches - Discretion of the Community institutions

(Council Regulation No 3760/92, Art. 8(4))

3. Community law - Principles - Proportionality - Measures to conserve marine resources - Discretion of the Community institutions - Judicial review - Limits

4. Community law - Principles - Protection of legitimate expectations - Limits - Amendments to rules concerning the common agricultural policy - Amendments made to a total allowable catch or a fishing quota in the context of international negotiations

5. Fisheries - Conservation of marine resources - System of fishing quotas - Principle of relative stability - Application to measures determining, and not distributing, the volume of available catches for the Community in the context of international negotiations - Excluded

(Council Regulations No 3760/92, Art. 8(4), and No 1761/95)

6. Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Lawful act - Real damage, causal link and unusual and special damage - Cumulative nature

(Art. 288 EC)

Summary

1. For Community law to recognise a right to reparation for loss caused by legislative measures, three conditions must be met, namely that the rule of law infringed be intended to confer rights on individuals, that the breach be sufficiently serious, and, finally, that there be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the Community and the damage sustained by the injured parties.

For there to be a sufficiently serious breach of the rule of law in question, there must be a serious and obvious disregard by a Community institution of the limits on its discretion.

( see paras 42, 45 )

2. When, in implementing the common agricultural policy, Community institutions are called upon to evaluate a complex economic situation, the discretion which they have is not limited solely to the nature and scope of the measures to be taken but also applies, to some extent, to the finding of basic facts. That is so where, pursuant to Article 8(4) of Regulation No 3760/92 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, the Council fixes the total allowable catches and distributes fishing opportunities among Member States. It is a fortiori so where the conservation measure has been decided upon not by the Community alone but by an international organisation in which the Community participates in the same way as all the other contracting parties.

( see paras 46-47 )

3. In order to establish whether a provision of Community law complies with the principle of proportionality it is necessary to ascertain whether the means which it employs are appropriate and necessary to attain the objective sought. However, in an area such as conserving marine resources, where the Community institutions have a broad discretion, the lawfulness of a measure can be affected only if it is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective pursued. The Court's review must be limited in particular if the Council has to reconcile divergent interests and thus select options within the context of the policy choices which are its own responsibility.

( see para. 78 )

4. Whilst the protection of legitimate expectations is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, economic operators cannot have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretion will be maintained, especially in an area such as the common agricultural policy, in which the institutions have a wide discretion. It follows that economic operators cannot claim a vested right to the maintenance of an advantage arising from Community legislation and which they enjoyed at a given time. That applies even more strongly in the context of international negotiations which, by their very nature, imply concessions on either side and the negotiation of a compromise accepted by all the contracting parties. An applicant cannot therefore claim to have a legitimate expectation in the maintenance of a total allowable catch or a quota where fishing takes place in the waters of non-member countries or under the authority of an international organisation and the volume of catches must necessarily be negotiated with non-member countries whose wishes do not necessarily coincide with those of the Community.

( see paras 122-124 )

5. The principle of relative stability, laid down in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 3760/92 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, is intended to ensure for each Member State a share of the Community's total allowable catches, determined essentially on the basis of the catches from which traditional fishing activities, the local populations dependent on fisheries and related industries of that Member State benefited before the quota system was established. That principle, which is peculiar to Community law, relates only to the allocation among the various Member States of the volume of catches available to the Community. However, the bilateral fisheries agreement with Canada in the context of the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North West Atlantic Fisheries and Regulation No 1761/95 establishing for 1995 a Community quota of 5 013 tonnes for catches of Greenland halibut in North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation sub-areas 2 and 3 do not allocate the volume of catches available to the Community among the Member States but determine that volume, and are thus at a different stage from that to which that principle applies. Moreover, that determination took place in the context of international negotiations subject only to rules of international law, to which the principle in question is unknown.

( see paras 150-151 )

6. Should the principle of no-fault liability of the Community be recognised in Community law, a precondition for such liability would in any event be the cumulative satisfaction of three conditions, namely the reality of the damage allegedly suffered, the causal link between it and the act complained of on the part of the Community institutions, and the unusual and special nature of that damage. The cumulative nature of those conditions means that if one of them is not satisfied, the Community cannot incur non-contractual liability in respect of a lawful act of its institutions.

( see paras 171, 179 )

Parties

In Case T-196/99,

Area Cova, SA, established in Vigo (Spain),

Armadora José Pereira, SA, established in Vigo,

Armadores Pesqueros de Aldán, SA, established in Vigo,

Centropesca, SA, established in Vigo,

Chymar, SA, established in Vigo,

Eloymar, SA, established in Estribela (Spain),

Exfaumar, SA, established in Bueu (Spain),

Farpespan, SL, established in Moaña (Spain),

Freiremar, SA, established in Vigo,

Hermanos Gandón, SA, established in Cangas (Spain),

Heroya, SA, established in Vigo,

Hiopesca, SA, established in Vigo,

José Pereira e Hijos, SA, established in Vigo,

Juana Oya Pérez, residing in Vigo,

Manuel Nores González, residing in Marín (Spain),

Moradiña, SA, established in Cangas,

Navales Cerdeiras, SL, established in Camariñas (Spain),

Nugago Pesca, SA, established in Bueu,

Pesquera Austral, SA, established in Vigo,

Pescaberbés, SA, established in Vigo,

Pesquerías Bígaro Narval, SA, established in Vigo,

Pesquera Cíes, SA, established in Vigo,

Pesca Herculina, SA, established in Vigo,

Pesquera Inter, SA, established in Cangas,

Pesquerías Marinenses, SA, established in Marín,

Pesquerías Tara, SA, established in Cangas,

Pesquera Vaqueiro, SA, established in Vigo,

Sotelo Dios, SA, established in Vigo,

represented by A. Creus Carreras and A. Agustinoy Guilayn, lawyers,

applicants,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by R. Gosalbo Bono, J. Carbery and M. Sims, acting as Agents,

and

Commission of the European Communities, represented by T. Van Rijn and J. Guerra Fernandez, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendants,

APPLICATION for compensation pursuant to Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC in respect of loss suffered by the applicants as a result of (1) the acceptance by the Commission and the Council of a total allowable catch for 1995 of 27 000 tonnes of Greenland halibut in the Regulatory Area defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North West Atlantic Fisheries and (2) the conclusion of a bilateral agreement between the Community and Canada and the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1761/95 of 29 June 1995 amending, for the second time, Regulation (EC) No 3366/94 laying down for 1995 certain conservation and management measures for fishery resources in the Regulatory Area as defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-west Atlantic Fisheries (OJ 1995 L 171, p. 1) establishing, with effect from 16 April 1995, a quota of 5 013 tonnes of Greenland halibut for Community vessels,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber),

composed of: J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges,

Registrar: J. Palacio González...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
1 cases
  • Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA v Commission of the European Communities.
    • European Union
    • General Court (European Union)
    • 3 May 2002
    ...[1992] ECR I-3061, paragraphs 18 and 19, and, for a case in which the rule invoked was not intended to confer rights on individuals, Case T-196/99 Area Cova and Others v Council and Commission [2001] ECR II-3597, paragraph 43).47 On the basis of the foregoing, the inevitable conclusion must......