Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1437

10.3.2025

(Case T-659/24)

(C/2025/1437)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bloom (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Lafforgue, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the European Commission’s decision of 18 October 2024 to reject the request for internal review, for the purposes of Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation, concerning Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1382 of 23 May 2024 extending a derogation from Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 as regards the prohibition to fish above protected habitats, the minimum distance from the coast and the minimum sea depth for the ‘gangui’ trawlers in certain territorial waters of France (Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur);

—order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment by the Commission in that it considered that the implementing regulation does not contravene environmental law. The plea in law is divided into two parts:

—the applicant claims, principally, that the derogation granted concerns, inter alia, an area covered by two protected marine areas falling within the scope of Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) 1967/2006, in respect of which no derogation may be granted. The applicant further claims, in that regard, that even if it were considered that the derogation for trawl fishing above Posidonia seagrass beds can apply to protected marine areas falling within the scope of paragraph 4, those two protected marine areas have been designated not only for the conservation of the Posidonia seagrass beds, but also for other types of seagrass beds, in particular Cymodocea nodosa and coralligenous habitats. According to the applicant, no derogation may be granted for trawl fishing in the protected marine areas for the conservation of those habitats.

—the applicant claims, in the alternative, that the implementing regulation is unlawful in that it does not limit the derogation.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1437/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—