Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62021TN0645

Case T-645/21: Action brought on 6 October 2021 — Bloom v Parliament and Council

OJ C 481, 29.11.2021, p. 39–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.11.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/39

Action brought on 6 October 2021 — Bloom v Parliament and Council

(Case T-645/21)

(2021/C 481/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bloom (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Saynac and L. Chovet-Ballester, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul in part, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 (OJ 2021 L 247, p. 1), in particular Articles 17, 18 and 19 thereof;

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the objectives of sustainable development and a high level of environmental protection. The applicant claims that Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 (‘the EMFAF Regulation’) reintroduces subsidies that are detrimental to the marine environment, in disregard of the objectives of sustainable development and a high level of environmental protection, reaffirmed by EU legislation.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles of EU law, namely the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality. According to the applicant, Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the EMFAF Regulation are contrary to the precautionary principle enshrined in Article 191(2) TFEU. Furthermore, the effects of the aforementioned articles are contrary to the principle of proportionality applied in fisheries matters.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean of 9 July 2004, and the principle of performance of agreements in good faith. The applicant maintains that Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the EMFAF Regulation run counter to the obligations relating to tackling over-fishing and the conservation of marine resources laid down in those conventions. The Parliament and the Council infringed the principle of performance of agreements in good faith by adopting the contested articles.
Top