C-185/78

JUDGMENT OF 3. 7. 1979 — JOINED CASES 185 to 204/78

In Joined Cases 185 to 204/78

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Economische Politierechter (magistrate in commercial matters) of the Arron­ dissementsrechtbank (District Court), Rotterdam, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against:

FIRMA J. VAN DAM EN ZONEN (Cases 185 and 186/78),

FIRMA J. EN W. LOKKER CORNELISZONEN (Cases 187 and 188/78),

REDERIJ DELTA B.V. (Case 189/78),.

JAN GRINWIS, FISHERMAN (Case 197/78)

ANTHONIJ REDERT, FISHERMAN (Case 198/78)

FIRMA A. REDERT EN G. TANIS (Case 199/78),

FIRMA JOH. EN KR. ORGERS GERRITZONEN (Case 200/78)

VISSERIJBEDRIJF WISSELVALLIGHEID B.V. (Case 201/78),

JOHANNES TANIS, FISHERMAN (Case 202/78),

composed of: H. Kutscher, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and Lord Mackenzie Stuart (Presidents of Chambers), P. Pescatore, M. Sørensen, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco, A. Touffait and T. Koopmans, Judges,

Advocate General: G. Reischl Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

The facts of the case, the course of the Republic of Germany, the United procedure and the observations Kingdom and Norway. Article 3 of the submitted under Article 20 of the decree exempts all Netherlands Protocol on the Statute of the Court of fishermen from this general prohibition Justice of the EEC may be summarized up to a maximum total catch of 765 as follows: tonnes of sole and 2 950 tonnes of plaice per calendar month. The Beschikking Voorlopige Regeling I — Facts and procedure Contingentering Tong en Schol Noordzee 1978 (Decree provisionally In the Netherlands, Article 2 of the laying down quotas for North Sea sole Beschikking Voorlopige Regeling Vangst­ and plaice, 1978) likewise dated 29 beperking Tong en Schol 1978 (Decree December 1977, implemented Article 3 provisionally laying down restrictions on of the decree provisionally laying down catches of sole and plaice, 1978) dated restrictions on catches of sole and plaice 29 December 1977 prohibits fishing for by fixing the rules and criteria for the sole and plaice from 1 January 1978 in allocation each month of the total auth­ certain maritime zones, in particular the orized catch and for deciding the North Sea, which is under the monthly quota allocated in 1978 to each jurisdiction not only of the Netherlands, Netherlands fishing vessel for catches of but also Belgium, Denmark, the Federal sole and plaice in the North Sea.

The two decrees of 29 December 1977, pending a preliminary ruling from the which entered into force on 1 January Court of Justice of the EEC on the 1978, were issued pursuant to the following questions: Reglement Zee- en Kustvisserij 1977 (Regulation concerning Sea and Coastal (1) On what date did the period referred Fishing, 1977) dated 25 November 1977, to in Article 102 of the Act Article 3 of which first enables the concerning the Conditions of Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to Accession and the Adjustments to adopt measures implementing inter­ national conventions or the decisions of the Treaties expire? international organizations, and secondly grants him power to make regulations (2) Are the measures pursuant to the "autonomously", that is to say, Reglement Zee- en Kustvisserij 1977 independently of international rules. (Regulation concerning sea and Article 4 of the regulation lists the coastal fishing, 1977 — Staatsblad spheres covered by this power of the 666) as set out in the Beschikking Minister to make regulations; the list Voorlopige Regeling Vangst­ includes in particular the fixing of the beperking Tong en Schol (Decree total quantity of fish which Netherlands provisionally laying down restrictions fishermen are authorized to catch and on catches of sole and plaice, 1978) how this amount is to be allocated and the Beschikking Voorlopige among Netherlands fishermen. Regeling Contingentering Tong en Schol Noordzee 1978 (Decree pro­ visionally laying down quotas for In January 1978, 17 Netherlands fishing North Sea sole and plaice, 1978 — Staatscourant 1977, 255) based on groups or fishermen infringed the provisions of the Decree provisionally decisions of the Community or on laying down quotas for North Sea sole obligations imposed by the and plaice by landing from fishing vessels Community on the Member States by treaty as referred to in Article 5 belonging to them quantities of sole and/or plaice in excess of the monthly of the EEC Treaty or on powers quota fixed for those vessels, which had conferred on the Member States by been communicated to them in a notice the Community? issued by the Director of Fisheries at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. (3) Is the content of the aforesaid measures compatible with Community law? On that ground these fishing groups and fishermen were summoned by the Officier van Justitie (the Public Pros­ The judgments given by the Econo­ mische Politierechter were received at ecutor) to appear on 27 June 1978 before the Economische Politierechter (magis­ the Court Registry on 14 September trate in commercial matters) of 1978. By an order dated 15 November the Arrondissementsrechtbank (District 1978, the Court decided to join the 20 Court), Rotterdam. cases, listed under numbers 185/78 to 204/78 for the purpose of the written and oral procedure and the judgment. In 20 judgments given on 18 July 1978 the Economische Politierechter decided In accordance with Article 20 of the to stay the proceedings, in accordance Protocol on the Statute of the Court of with Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, Justice of the EEC, written observations

were submitted on 27 November 1978 by the Netherlands regulations at issue in the Commission of the European the main proceedings. Communities, represented by its Legal Adviser, J. H. J. Bourgeois; on 6 December by Firma J. van Dam en Zonen and the other accused in the main (a) On this point it should be noted proceedings represented by H. H. Kro­ that at the beginning of the year 1977 nenberg, Advocate of Rotterdam; on the the Netherlands, in company with the same date by the Government of the other Member States of the EEC who Kingdom of the Netherlands, were party to it, denounced the North- represented by F. Italianer, Secretary East Atlantic Fisheries Convention; no General of the Ministry for Foreign new international convention with the Affairs; on 13 December by the EEC a party to it was made. Nor had Government of the Kingdom of the Council of the EEC adopted regu­ Denmark, represented by Per Lachmann, lations restricting catches of sole and adviser to the Department of External plaice for the year 1978; the decision of Economic Relations at the Ministry for the Council in December 1977 to extend Foreign Affairs, and on 2 January 1979 the validity of the Community regu­ by the Government of the French lations for conservation and management Republic. until 31 January 1978 cannot apply to fishing for sole and plaice: in 1977 there were no Community regulations Upon hearing the report of the Judge- specifically relating to this sector. No Rapporteur and the views of the decision was taken by the Council within Advocate General the Court decided to the terms of the EEC Treaty to extend open the oral proceedings without the validity of national regulations in holding any preliminary inquiry. The force in 1977 and based on international Court decided, however, to request the conventions which have since lapsed. For Governments of the Kingdom of the the year 1978 the Council at its meeting Netherlands, the Kingdom of Denmark, on 30 and 31 January 1978 approved a the French Republic and the United statement from the Commission to the Kingdom and the Commission to answer effect that where no common system a question before the proceedings existed, national measures might only be commenced. The request was complied adopted: in so far they were strictly with in due time. necessary for the conservation and management of fishery resources, non- discriminatory, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, and after the prior approval of the Commission had been sought. The date on which the Council approved the Commission's statement shows that it cannot refer to the quota system at issue in the main proceedings, II — Written observations sub­ which was in force in January 1978; nor mitted to the Court can it be accepted as being a formal authorization.

The reply to the first question should The judgment of 14 July 1976 (Joined therefore be: Cases 3, 4 and 6/76 Kramer and Others [1976] 2 ECR 1279) lays down that "the Community not yet having fully On the basis of Community law, and in exercised its functions" in the matter, the particular Article 102 of the Act of Member States had at the time "the Accession, Member States are not power to assume commitments ... in competent after 1 January 1978 to take respect of the conservation of the measures to limit catches such as those biological resources of the sea", but that referred to in the Beschikking "this authority which the Member States Voorlopige Regeling Vangstbeperking have is only of a transitional nature"; Tong en Schol 1978 and in the this transitional authority will come to an Beschikking Voorlopige Regeling end "from the sixth year after accession Contingentering Tong en Schol at the latest, since the Council must by Noordzee 1978. Only an express auth­ then have adopted, in accordance with orization in a Council regulation can the obligation imposed on it by Article enable Member States to adopt such 102 of the Act of Accession, measures measures. for the conservation of the resources of the sea". Thus, from the sixth year after accession at the latest, only the Community is competent to adopt (c) Even on the assumption that measures internally for the conservation Member States retained residual powers of the biological resources of the sea, after 1 January 1978, the fact remains and this exclusive authority at the that the terms of the two Netherlands internal level implies also exclusive regulations in question in the main authority at the external level. proceedings are not compatible with Article 7 of the EEC Treaty and Article 2 of Council Regulation No 101/76 of 19 January 1976 laying down a common It also appears from the judgments of the structural policy for the fishing industry Court of 16 February 1978 (Case 61/77 (Official Journal, L 20, p. 19). Indeed Commission v Ireland [1978] ECR 417; the case-law of the Court shows that Case 88/77, Schonenberg [1978] ECR even during the transitional period 473) that during the transitional period national measures may not be contrary referred to in Article 102 of the Act of to Community law and that, where they Accession, Member States retain only restrict fishing activities, they must affect residual powers as far as the fishing the functioning of the market organiz­ sector is concerned, and that no powers ation as little as possible. can remain at the national level once the transitional period expires. Article 7 of the EEC Treaty prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality; Article 2 of Regulation No The accession referred to in Article 102 101/76 provides for equal treatment as of the Act . of Accession took place on regards the conditions of access to, and

fishing in, the maritime waters coming point raised by the main proceedings is under the sovereignty or within the whether Member States have power to jurisdiction of each Member State. The adopt measures restricting fishing rights disputed regulations either impose, over and that this point must be considered in the North Sea area, which is only the light of a provisional extension partially covered by the Netherlands through 1978 of the validity of the two fishing zone of 200 nautical miles, a ministerial decrees regulating catches of prohibition applicable to all fishermen sole and plaice in the North Sea. irrespective of nationality with an exemption in favour of Netherlands fishermen up to the limit of the monthly quota they are allowed, or they permit EEC fishermen other than Netherlands (a) Until the beginning of 1978, the fishermen to fish freely whilst the Netherlands fishermen are restricted to Member States of the Community, apart from Italy and Luxembourg, were parties the monthly quota imposed on them by to the North-East Atlantic Fisheries their national regulations; there is Convention. Recommendation No 15A, discrimination in either case. In fact, the adopted on 25 November 1976 under Netherlands regulations apply only to this convention, imposed for the year Netherlands fishermen taking sole and 1977 restrictions on catches of sole and plaice, who are thus put in a much less plaice in the North Sea by means of favourable position than their fellow fixing global catch quotas and allocating fishermen in the EEC, as none of the them amongst the countries concerned. Member States has adopted a The Netherlands authorities adopted this comparable or identical quota system for recommendation in the Beschikking the month of January 1978. Vangstbeperking Tong en Schol 1977 (Decree laying down restrictions on catches of sole and plaice, 1977) and, implementing this Decree, in the The reply to the third question should be Beschikking Contingentering Tong en as follows: Schol Noordzee 1977 (Decree laying down quotas for North Sea sole and plaice, 1977) which introduced a quota system on the basis of annual quotas for The measures restricting catches, based each vessel. In December 1977, as the on Article 4 of the Reglement Zee- en Community was unable to establish a Kustvisserij 1977 and which are laid common fisheries policy, it decided at down in particular by the Beschikking the Council meeting held on 5, 6 and 7 December 1977 to extend until 1 Voorlopige Regeling Vangstbeperking Tong en Schol 1978 and the Beschikking February 1978 the national regulations Voorlopige Regeling Contingentering concerning catches of sole and plaice in Tong en Schol Noordzee 1978 are force in 1977. The Netherlands auth­

The transitional period referred to in Article 102 is not a period of transition within the meaning of Article 9 of the The Netherlands decrees introducing a Act of Accession: Article 102 imposes an provisional system for the year 1978 are obligation not on the Member States, but not discriminatory within the meaning of on a Community institution. Article 9 Article 7 of the EEC Treaty: according to the decision taken on 5, 6 and 7 imposes an obligation on the new December 1977 which is in essence a Member States to abolish precisely defined transitional measures, but the Community one, the Member States duty which falls on the Council is to concerned are obliged to extend until 1 determine "conditions for fishing", with February 1978 the prohibition, applicable no further definition. Thus Article 102 of to all in 1977, on catching more sole and the Act of Accession does not prevent plaice in the North Sea than was allowed the adoption of national conservation by Recommendation No 15 A. The measures, provided, of course, that such Netherlands made this extension: they were bound to do so, even if the auth­ measures are adopted with due regard to orities in the other Member States did the duty of co-operation devolving on the Member States, especially as regards not have due regard to this obligation. In keeping the Commission informed and any case, even if the provisional rules consulting it, in the event of its proving applied by the Netherlands are purely impossible to find a general solution national in character, they do not on that account amount to discrimination within the Council early enough. prohibited by Community law, because the unequal treatment given to the nationals of the various Member States is due to the differences existing between It is generally agreed that the six-year the laws of the Member States. period referred to in Article 102 of the Act of Accession expires on 1 January 1979.

the transitional provisions normally cease Council's adoption of the measures to apply that is meant, in accordance which are required. with Article 9 of the Act of Accession. However, the fact that Article 102 does not in terms refer to the end of the normal transitional period seems to At a meeting of the Council on 5, 6 and militate rather in favour of the argument 7 December 1977, when no agreement that 31 December 1978 is the ultimate could be reached on the introduction of date for applying the transitional Community rules as from 1 January measures referred to therein. 1978, the Member States decided that the regulations in force in 1977, both Community and national, would continue to apply in January 1978; the agreement to extend the validity of (b) The Court has recognized, notably national measures was made in the in its judgment of 16 February 1978, that Council during the discussions, but was Member States have power to take not made the subject of a formal conservation measures which are strictly decision. necessary, provisional and non-discrimi­ natory, so long as the transitional period laid down in Article 102 of the Act of Accession has not expired and the The Netherlands decrees concerned in Community has not yet fully exercised the main proceedings were adopted in its power in the matter. The competence accordance with this tacit agreement of the Netherlands Government cannot between the Member States and the therefore be contested in this instance; Commission. The obligation to co­ moreover, the Netherlands measures operate imposed on Member States by were of a provisional nature and were Article 5 of the Treaty was thus fulfilled not discriminatory. by the Netherlands Government after the period laid down in Article 102 of the Act of Accession had expired.

measure for the conservation of the the field of common Community policies resources of the sea; as for the indefinitely. management of such quotas, any Member State is entitled, until the The national measures concerned in the Council adopts more precise rules in this respect, to fix the rules which it main proceedings are dependent on the considers necessary and appropriate. The general body of Communty law, for this fact that these national rules, which each law as it stands at present still permits Member State determines with regard to Member States to issue national regu­ lations under certain conditions. the participation of its own nationals in fishing activity, differ in detail from one Member State to another is not sufficient The powers of the Community as to make them discriminatory as far as regards the fishing sector and, more Community law is concerned. precisely, the conservation of maritime species, are clearly derived from the EEC The reply to the second and third Treaty (subparagraph (d) of Article 3, Article 38 (3), Annex II, Article 40 (1), questions referred to the Court should be as follows: (2) and (3), Article 43 (2)), and from Article 102 of the Act of Accession; the Court has said, however, that in spheres The adoption of national measures of the not yet covered by Community rules, kind referred to in the second question is Member States may still, as a transitional not incompatible with Community law. step, adopt national measures, which are, of course, subject to certain conditions. The competence of Member States The Government of the French Republic derives from Community law in its notes in relation to the first question that present uncompleted state in relation to there are two types of provision fishing; this competence is not, however, "unbridled". concerning expiry of the transitional periods in the Act of Accession, one general, Article 9, and the others The Netherlands decrees concerned in specific. According to Article 9, the the main proceedings were issued in application of the transitional measures accordance with Community law: they designed to facilitate the adjustment of amount to no more than an extension, as new Member States terminates at the end decided by the Council at its meeting on of 1977, "subject to the dates, time-limits 5, 6 and 7 December 1977, of the period and special provisions" provided for in of validity of measures enacted with the the Act of Accession; the fishing industry agreement of the Community institutions is covered by one such special provision for the year 1977 in .order to implement containing time-limits and dates different a recommendation from the North-East from those in Article 9. Atlantic Fisheries Commission.

The Commission of the European Communities recalls the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Moreover, Article 102 appears in the Netherlands measures concerned in the part of the Act of Accession devoted to main proceedings and also their context, transitional measures. It is therefore in particular its own draft regulation covered by the general provisions in proposed to the Council in October Article 9 of the Act of Accession; but 1977, which defined certain measures for paragraph (2) of the latter states that the the conservation and management of application of the transitional measures fishery resources for 1978, including the shall terminate at the end of 1977 introduction of quotas, the decisions of "subject to the dates, time-limits and the Council at its meeting on 5, 6 and 7 special provisions provided for in this December 1977 and, after "stopping the act". Article 102 thus falls outside the clock", on 16 January 1978, Council scope of the general rule in Article 9 (2) Regulation No 2899/77 of 21 December which would have compelled the 1977, extending the validity of certain Community to act before completion of interim measures for the conservation the five-year transitional period. and management of fishery resources (Official Journal L 338, p. 5).

As regards the first aspect, it should be relevant in the main proceedings, and noted that as a result of the agreement having regard to the present state of the reached at the Council meeting on 7 law, Netherlands fishermen received December 1977 on the extension until 31 different treatment which put them at a January 1978 of the existing national disadvantage, is a question of fact which measures, the other Member States must be decided by the court hearing in concerned continued to apply the catch the main proceedings. quotas fixed for the year 1977 in accordance with the recommendations made under the North-East Atlantic The question which has been referred to Fisheries Convention. the Court covers the possibility of discrimination against Netherlands fishermen in two situations: a prohibition The different treatment resulting from on fishing with a partial exemption from discrepancies between the laws of that prohibition, first, outside the area Member States is inherent in the very under Netherlands jurisdiction, and existence of jurisdiction and legislation at secondly, inside that area. the national level. The Treaty ignores such disparities except to the extent to which they directly effect the As to the first situation, Article 7 of the establishment or functioning of the Treaty does not envisage such Common Market (Article 100) or cause differences of treatment: it is not in this distortion (Articles 101 and 102); the instance a case of a Member State Treaty does not provide for their total applying its legislation differently abolition except where a common policy according to nationality. The possibility has created a unified system of rules. of different treatment is due, in this case, Moreover, the Treaty does not prohibit to the fact that the authority of the such disparities, but entrusts to the Netherlands State is itself limited. As far Community legislature the task of as fishing activities outside the area eliminating them. Consequently these under its jurisdiction are concerned, the disparities do not fall within the sphere Netherlands State can only legislate with of application of Article 7 of the Treaty; regard to Netherlands fishermen. The this view is confirmed by the case-law of difference in treatment can only be the Court, especially the judgment of 13 eliminated by not executing the conser­ February 1969 (Case 14/68 Wilhelm vation measures in question to the extent [1969] ECR 1). to which they apply outside the area under Netherlands jurisdiction.

accepted the obligation to adopt appro­ there is no similar restriction on the same priate measures governing their area applicable to fishermen from other nationals, even in the area subject to the Member States does not infringe Article jurisdiction of another Contracting State 7 of the Treaty. "without prejudice to the sovereign rights of the States in regard to their territorial and internal waters". (c) In view of the judgment of the Court of 16 February 1978 it is not In so far as fishermen from other necessary to reply to the second question Member States fished for sole and plaice in order to decide the issue in the main in the area subject to Netherlands proceedings. jurisdiction, there was no unfair treatment of Netherlands fishermen. This difference of treatment was the result of III — Oral procedure two factors: the fact that Netherlands legislation contained no restriction on Firma J. van Dam en Zonen and the catches applicable to fishermen from other accused in the main proceedings, other Member States, and the fact that, represented by H. H. Kronenburg; the contrary to the undertaking which they Government of the Kingdom of the gave during the Council meeting on Netherlands, represented by A. Bos, 7 December 1977, other Member States Deputy Counsellor in the Legal did not extend the validity of the Department of the Ministry for Foreign national measures of 1977. It is doubtful Affairs; the Government of the Kingdom whether making the Netherlands of Denmark, represented by Per restrictions on catches illegal under Lachmann; the Government of the Article 7 of the Treaty would be the United Kingdom, represented by P. G. proper way of penalizing the failure of Langdon-Davies, Barrister-at-Law, and other Member States to fulfil that under­ the Commission of the European taking. Apart from this point, the Communities, represented by J. H. J. disparity of treatment in question is a Bourgeois, submitted their oral obser­ form of discrimination in reverse. vations and their replies to the questions asked by the Court at the hearing on 10 In this context it should be noted that a May 1979. restriction on catches of fish by its nationals in the area subject to the The Advocate General delivered his jurisdiction of a Member State when opinion at the hearing on 6 June 1979.

2 From the file on the case it appears that criminal proceedings were instituted before the Economische Politierechter against 20 fishing undertakings of fishermen for infringing the provisions of the Netherlands regulations fixing for the year 1978 quotas for catches of sole and plaice in the North Sea area, namely the "Decree provisionally laying down restrictions on catches of sole and plaice, 1978" and the "Decree provisionally laying down quotas for North Sea sole and plaice, 1978". In the national court the accused claimed in their defence that since the transitional period laid down in Article 102 of the Act of Accession expired on 1 January 1978, the measures to be taken for protecting the biological resources of the sea were under the Community's jurisdiction. Consequently the Netherlands State was no longer authorized to enact the regulations which gave rise to the proceedings. The accused also claim that even if the Netherlands provisions were legally enacted, they are incompatible with Community law because they constitute discrimination against Netherlands fishermen in view of the fact that the provisions applied by the other Member States in the same maritime zone are less strict.

3 To enable him to settle this dispute the Economische Politierechter has referred three questions to the Court, which are worded as follows:

(1) On what date did the period referred to in Article 102 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties expire?

(2) Are the measures pursuant to the Reglement Zee- en Kustvisserij 1977 (Regulation concerning sea and coastal fishing, 1977 — Staatsblad 666) as set out in the Beschikking Voorlopige Regeling Vangstbeperking Tong en Schol 1978 (Decree provisionally laying down restrictions on catches of sole and plaice, 1978) and the Beschikking Voorlopige Regeling Contingentering Tong en Schol Noordzee 1978 (Decree pro­ visionally laying down quotas for North Sea sole and plaice, 1978 — Staatsblad 1977, 255) based on decisions of the Community or on obligations imposed by the Community on the Member States by treaty

5 The answer to the first question must therefore be that-the period referred to in Article 102 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties expired on 31 December 1978.

Second question (competence)

6 It follows from the foregoing that the events which gave rise to the proceedings pending before the Economische Politierechter occurred

JUDGMENT OF 3. 7. 1979 — JOINED CASES I85 TO 204/78

at a time when the transitional period under Article 102 had not yet expired.

7 It should also be borne in mind, however, that at the time in question the Council had not implemented the protective measures envisaged by Article 102. This led to uncertainty in the law, but it did not actually entail a legal vacuum from the point of view of Community law. The Court has shown in its judgment of 16 February 1978 (Case 61/77 Commission v Ireland [1978] ECR 417, paragraphs 28 to 37 and 56 to 68), what the law is applicable in the circumstances and how powers are divided between the Community and the Member States. It follows that during the year 1978 the Member States had the right and the duty to adopt, within their respective spheres of jurisdiction, any measure compatible within Community law to protect the biological resources of the sea and, in particular, to fix fishing quotas for fishing undertakings and fishermen subject to their control.

10 In this connexion it should be remembered that protective measures agreed on within the Community, in consultation with the Commission, are based on responsibility shared between the Member States, in the sense that at present each State regulates in accordance with the provisions of its own national legislation concerning fishing quotas, the catches landed in its own ports. It cannot be held contrary to the principle of non-discrimination to apply national legislation, the compatibility of which with Community law is moreover not contested, because other Member States allegedly apply less strict rules. Inequalities of this kind, if they exist, must be eliminated by means of the consultations provided for by Annex VI to The Hague Resolution, quoted in the judgment referred to above, but they cannot be the foundation of a charge of discrimination with regard to the provisions made by a Member State which applies equally to any person under its jurisdiction, the regulations which it had adopted for fishing quotas.

11 The answer to the third question must therefore be that national provisions, such as those in the Netherlands regulations concerning fishing quotas to which the national court has referred, cannot be considered as discriminatory as long as they are applied uniformly to all the fishermen under the jurisdiction of the Member State concerned.

Costs

12 The costs incurred by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted obser­ vations to the Court, are not recoverable.

2. Measures such as those covered by the Beschikking Voorlopige Regeling Vangstbeperking Tong en Schol 1978 (Decree provisionally laying down restrictions on catches of sole and plaice, 1978) and the Beschikking Voorlopige Regeling Contingentering Tong en Schol Noordzee 1978 (Decree provisionally laying down quotas for North Sea sole and plaice, 1978), both dated 29 December 1977, were, at the time in question, within the powers of the Member States.

3. National laws such as those in the Netherlands regulations relating to fishing quotas dated 29 December 1977 cannot be considered discrimi­ natory as long as they are applied uniformly to all the fishermen under the jurisdiction of the Member State concerned.

Kutscher Mertens de Wilmars Mackenzie Stuart Pescatore Sørensen

O'Keeffe Bosco Touffait Koopmans

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 3 July 1979.

A. Van Houtte H. Kutscher