Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/2934

6.5.2024

(Case C-194/24)

(C/2024/2934)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by M. Di Benedetto and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato, and G. Lillo, procuratore dello Stato)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 November 2023 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006 and (EC) No 1005/2008 and Regulations (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2017/2403 and (EU) 2019/473 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards fisheries control, published in the Official Journal on 20 December 2023, Series L.

—order the Council and the Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality, an infringement of Articles 7, 8, 31 and Article 52(1), (2) and (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and an infringement of Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The contested regulation, by specifying the compulsory installation of monitoring cameras on board vessels as a measure for monitoring compliance with the landing obligation, constitutes a restriction on the right to privacy of the persons on board, on the right to the protection of their personal data and on the right of workers to decent working conditions, which is wholly disproportionate to the interest pursued, given that other alternatives exist that would have made it possible to usefully pursue the same objective without sacrificing the other interests at stake to such an extent and, in any case, that regulation does not adequately ensure the protection of those rights.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 3(3) TEU, an infringement of Article 101 et seq. and Article 120 TFEU and an infringement of Protocol No 27 on the internal market and competition.

Granting considerable discretion to the authorities of the individual Member States in categorising an infringement as serious infringes or may infringe the principle of equal treatment of economic operators, leading to a distortion of competition within the European Union due to differing assessments of the penalty system by the various Member States.