Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 October 2016 — UAB ‘Spika’, AB ‘Senoji Baltija’, UAB ‘Stekutis’, UAB ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

(Case C-540/16)

(2017/C 006/36)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: UAB ‘Spika’, AB ‘Senoji Baltija’, UAB ‘Stekutis’, UAB ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’

Respondent: Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

Other parties: Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija, BUAB ‘Sedija’, UAB ‘Starkis’, UAB ‘Baltijos šprotai’, UAB ‘Ramsun’, AB ‘Laivitė’, UAB ‘Baltlanta’, UAB ‘Strimelė’, V. Malinausko gamybinė-komercinė firma ‘Stilma’, UAB ‘Banginis’, UAB ‘Monistico’, UAB ‘Rikneda’, UAB ‘Baltijos jūra’, UAB ‘Grinvita’, BUAB ‘Baltijos žuvys’

Question referred

Are Articles 17 and 2(5)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC, in the light of Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State exercises the discretion provided for in Article 16(6), it is prohibited from choosing a method of allocation of the fishing quotas allocated to it which causes unequal conditions of competition for economic operators engaging in activity in this field on account of a greater quantity of fishing opportunities, even if that method is based on a transparent and objective criterion?

(1)  OJ 2013 L 354, p. 22.