Case T-180/00

Astipesca, SL

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Fisheries — Reduction of Community financial aid — Action for annulment — Articles 44 and 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 — Principle of proportionality — Action for compensation’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 17 October 2002   II-3988

Summary of the Judgment

1. Fisheries — Common structural policy — Support for the creation of joint enterprises — Community financial assistance — Reduction in assistance — Condition

   (Council Regulation No 4028/86, Art. 44(1))

2. Community law — Principles — Proportionality — Reduction of financial aid as a result of noncompliance on the part of the beneficiary joint enterprise of the obligation to fish in the waters of the third country referred to in the decision to grant assistance — Breach — None

   (Council Regulation No 4028/86, Arts 21a and 44(1), first indent)

3. Actions for damages — Independent of actions for annulment — Action seeking withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive — Inadmissible

   (Arts 215 EC and 288, second para., EC)

1.  Under the first indent of Article 44(1) of Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt fisheries and aquaculture structures, the Commission may decide to reduce the financial aid granted to a joint enterprise if the project is not carried out as specified. The exercise of the power to reduce aid thus conferred upon the Commission is not conditional on the finding of unlawful enrichment of the beneficiary of the aid.

   (see paras 80, 107)

2.  The Commission is not in breach of the principle of proportionality when it decides, pursuant to the first indent of Article 44(1) of Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt fisheries and aquaculture structures, to reduce by one tenth the financial aid granted to a joint enterprise created for the purpose of exploiting and where applicable using, with the primary consideration being given to the supply of the Community market, the fishery resources of waters falling within the sovereignty and/or jurisdiction of a specific third country, on the ground that that enterprise has not complied with an essential condition for the proper management and stability of the international relations between the Community and nonmember countries in the framework of the fisheries policy, that is, the obligation to fish in the waters of the third country referred to in the decision to grant assistance.

   It was reasonable for the Commission to consider that a less severe sanction was likely to compromise the sound management of the structural policy for fisheries and to invite fraud, since beneficiaries of aid would be tempted to change fishing zones without informing the Commission, at the risk only of having that aid reduced in a symbolic manner or, in any event, to an extent less than that which corresponds to the seriousness and duration of the infringement.

   (see paras 90-91, 112, 114)

3.  While, clearly, a claim for damages based on the second paragraph of Article 288 EC is an independent form of action in the system of remedies available in Community law, so that the fact that an application for annulment is inadmissible does not in itself render a claim for damages inadmissible, a claim for damages must nevertheless be held to be inadmissible when it is actually aimed at securing withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive and would, if upheld, have the effect of nullifying the legal effects of that decision.

   (see para. 139)