C-181/80

PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL v ARBELAIZ-EMAZABEL

In Case 181/80

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the French Cour de Cassation [Court of Cassation] for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL PRÈS LA COUR D'APPEL DE PAU [Public Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal, Pau], ADMINISTRATEUR DES AFFAIRES MARITIMES DU QUARTIER DE BAYONNE, intervener, SYNDICAT DES MARINS DE SAINT-JEAN-DE-LUZ, civil party claiming damages in criminal proceedings,

and

JOSÉ ARBELAIZ-EMAZABEL,

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

The facts of the case, the course of aspects of the creation of a 200-mile the procedure and the observations fishing zone in the Community with submitted pursuant to Article 20 of the effect from 1 January 1977 (Official Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Journal 1981 C 105, p. 1), the Member Justice of the EEC may be summarized States of the Community extended their as follows: fishing zones with effect from 1 January 1977 to 200 miles off their North Sea and North Atlantic coasts. Since then the exploitation of fishery resources in those I — Facts and procedure zones by the fishing vessels of non- member countries has been governed by a series of interim Community measures 1. The facts of the main proceedings relating to each of the countries may be summarized as follows: involved. The measures were adopted pending the conclusion of outline agreements on fisheries between the On 3 November 1977 La Providencia, a Community and those non-member Spanish vessel registered in San Sebastian countries. under No SS 1-2190, was discovered fishing in French territorial waters off Bayonne in the band of sea between 6 The provisions applicable to vessels and 12 miles from the coast. flying the flag of Spain were laid down initially by Council Regulation (EEC) No 373/77 of 24 February 1977 (Official Since the master of the vessel, Mr Journal L 53, p. 1). The validity of those Arbelaiz-Emazabel, did not hold the provisions was subsequently extended fishing licence required by the applicable and certain amendments were made. Community rules, he was brought before the Tribunal de Grande Instance [Regional Court], Bayonne, charged The rules applicable at the material time with fishing illegally in French territorial are contained in Council Regulation waters. (EEC) No 2160/77 of 30 September 1977 laying down certain interim measures for the conservation and 2. The provisions of the regulations management of fishery resources and international agreements involved applicable to vessels flying the flag of may be summarized as follows: Spain (Official Journal 1977 L 250, p. 17). Articles 1, 2 and 3 of that regulation provide as follows: (a) Community provisions on fishing applicable to vessels flying the flag of Spain "Article 1

make from 1 October to 31 December Series Vol. 581, No 8432) defines the 1977 in the 200-nautical mile fishing common aspects of a fisheries regime for zones of the Member States situated off the 6-mile zone measured from the the North Sea and Atlantic coasts and baseline and for the zone between 6 and covered by Community rules on 12 miles from that line. fisheries, and the places where such catches may be made, are laid down in Annex I. Each of the contracting parties recognize the right of the other contracting parties to establish the fishery regime described Article 2 in the Convention (Article 1 (1)). Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention provide as follows : The fishing quotas shall be granted subject to compliance with the con- servation measures and supervisory measures and other provisions governing "Article 2 fishing in the zones referred to in Article 1. The coastal State has the exclusive right to fish and exclusive jurisdiction in Article 3 matters of fisheries within the belt of 6 miles measured from the baseline of its territorial sea. 1. Fishing within the zones referred to in Article 1 by vessels flying the flag of Spain shall be subject to the granting Article 3 of a licence on behalf of the Community by the Commission and to observance of the conditions set Within the belt between 6 and 12 miles out in the licence. measured from the baseline of the territorial sea, the right to fish shall be 2. Each licence shall be valid for one exercised only by the coastal State and vessel only for a period not extending by such other Contracting Parties, the beyond 31 December 1977 and for fishing vessels of which have habitually the species of fish indicated in the fished in that belt between 1 January licence within the quantitative and 1953 and 31 December 1962. geographical limits referred to in Article 1. Article 5 3. The maximum number of vessels permitted to fish in a given geogra- phical zone and the maximum number 1. Within the belt mentioned in Article 3 of vessels authorized to fish there the coastal State has the power to simultaneously are laid down in regulate the fisheries and to enforce Annex II." such regulations, including regulations to give effect to internationally agreed measures of conservation, provided that there shall be no discrimination (b) International agreements in form or in fact against fishing vessels of other Contracting Parties The London Fisheries Convention of fishing in conformity with Articles 3 9 March 1964 (United Nations Treaty and 4.

Within the framework of the voisinage The French legislation applicable to this arangements provided for in Article 9 (2) case is embodied in the Law of 1 March of the London Convention, France and 1888 prohibiting foreigners from fishing Spain, by an exchange of notes of in French territorial waters, as amended 20 March 1967, concluded a general by Decree No 67-451 of 7 June 1967 agreement on fishing. With regard to the and by Law No 67-1086 of 15 December rights of Spanish fishermen to fish in the 1967. waters under French jurisdiction, Article 1 (b) of the Agreement provides as follows: Following the entry into force of the London Fisheries Convention of 9 March 1964, a reserved fishing zone was "In the 6 to 12-mile zone off the French created by virtue of the fact that Decree coasts, Spanish nationals shall have a No 67-451 of 7 June 1967 above- permanent right to fish: mentioned extended the prohibition to 12 nautical miles measured from the baselines of the French territorial sea. — for all species on the Atlantic coast The same decree provides that pursuant from the mouth of Bidassoa as far as to the London Convention exceptions to the parallel which passes through the that prohibition are to be laid down northernmost point of Belle-Ile." by decree. Law No 67-1086 of 15 December 1967 prescribes the penal sanctions to be applied. Following the extension by the Member States of the Community of their fishing limits to 200 miles on 1 January 1977, Decree No 68-209 of 23 February 1968 the Commission of the European lays down the conditions on which Communities embarked upon a series of Spanish fishing vessels are allowed to negotiations on fisheries agreements to engage in fishing within the reserved 6 to be concluded between the Community 12-mile zone and, for a transitional and non-member countries, including period, in the 3 to 6-mile zone, in Spain. Thus, an agreement with Spain accordance with the London Convention

By Law No 71-1060 of 24 December Finally, the Cour d'Appel considered 1971 the limit of French territorial that the regulation which the defendant waters was extended to 12 miles, but was accused of having infringed had not "without prejudice to the exercise of been notified to Spain before being fishing rights granted to certain foreign adopted, and that it very severely vessels on terms laid down by inter- restricted the fishing rights of Spanish national agreements and French vessels and created discrimination against domestic law". them, contrary to the London Conven- tion of 9 March 1964, in view of the fact that the vessels of Community countries were not required to hold a licence. 3. By judgment of 1 December 1977, the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Bayonne, acquitted the defendant. The Cour de Cassation, to which the Procureur Général at the Cour d'Appel, Pau, had referred the matter, considered that although the disputed Community By judgment of 27 June 1978, the Cour regulations, which have become part of d'Appel, Pau, upheld the judgment of the law of the Member States, had the the Bayonne court. In so doing, it took effect, as contended by the Procureur the view that the decree of 22 September Général, of repealing by implication the 1967 publishing the exchange of notes provisions of the decree of 23 February constituting the General Agreement on 1968 laying down conditions for fishing Fishing between France and Spain and by Spanish vessels, serious doubt arose authorizing both French and Spanish on the question: vessels to fish within the 6 to 12-mile zone off the French and Spanish coasts, and the decree of 23 February 1968 laying down the conditions for fishing by "Whether, having regard to prior inter- Spanish vessels within the French national obligations, Regulations No reserved zone, had not been denounced 353/77 of 24 February 1977, No 746/77 or abrogated. of 5 April 1977, No 1416/77 of 28 June 1977, No 1709/77 of 26 July 1977 and No 2160/77 of 30 September 1977 are valid, in so far as they lay down new The Cour d'Appel also referred to a detailed rules for fishing operations Note Verbale of 14 July 1977 from carried out by Spanish vessels in the the Commission of the European reserved fishing zone from 6 to 12 Communities to the Spanish Ministry nautical miles, and whether, if valid, of Foreign Affairs, in which the those regulations are enforceable against Commission stated that Spanish vessels Spanish nationals." were not permitted to fish inside the 12-mile coastal zones, with the exception of the zone referred to in the Franco- Spanish Agreement of 20 March 1967. By judgment of 7 July 1980, the Cour de The court concluded therefrom that the Cassation referred that question to the Community provisions were not Court of Justice under Article 177 of the therefore enforceable against Spanish Treaty.

4. The judgment of the Cour de opinion, exists between, on the one Cassation of 7 July 1980 was received at hand, the Community regulations laying the Court Registry on 25 August 1980. down certain interim measures for the conservation and management of fishery resources applicable to vessels flying the flag of Spain and, on the other hand, Pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on certain provisions of the London the Statute of the Court of Justice of Fisheries Convention of 9 March 1964 the EEC, written observations were and of the Franco-Spanish Agreement of submitted by the following: the 20 March 1967. defendant in the main proceedings, Mr Arbelaiz-Emazabel, represented by J. Tournaire, of the Bayonne Bar; the Government of the French Republic, By unilaterally imposing a restrictive represented by Gilbert Guillaume, regime only upon Spanish nationals, the Director of Legal Matters at the Ministry Community regulations in question are of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent: the in breach of the principle of non-discrimi- Government of the United Kingdom, nation laid down in the London represented by R. D. Munrow, of the Convention and contrary to the freedom Treasury Solicitor's Department, acting to fish embodied in the Franco-Spanish as Agent; the Council of the European Agreement. In this respect, Mr Arbelaiz- Communities, represented by Daniel Emazabel refers to Article 5 of the Vignes, Director of its Legal Depart- London Convention, which prohibits, ment, acting as Agent, assisted by Aidan with regard to the 6 to 12-mile zone, all Larkin, an Administrator in that depart- discrimination in form or in fact against ment; and the Commission of the fishing vessels of other contracting European Communities, represented by parties fishing in conformity with its Legal Adviser, Jacques Bourgeois, Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention. He acting as Agent, assisted by François also draws attention to the permanent Lamoureux, a member of its Legal right to fish for all species throughout Department. the French coastal zone between 6 and 12 miles granted to Spanish fishermen by Article 1 (b) of the Franco-Spanish Agreement. Upon hearing the report of the Judge- Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court decided to He considers that the conflict between open the oral procedure without any those provisions should be resolved in preparatory inquiry. accordance with the general principle laid down in Article 30 (4) (b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and adopted in Article 234 of the EEC Treaty in the following terms : II — S u m m a r y of the w r i t t e n o b s e r v a t i o n s s u b m i t t e d to the C o u r t "The rights and obligations arising from agreements concluded before the entry into force of this Treaty between one or more Member States on the one hand, The defendant in the main proceedings, and one or more third countries on the Mr Arbelaiz-Emazabel, refers in the first other, shall not be affected by the place to the conflict which, in his provisions of this Treaty."

Mr Arbelaiz-Emazabel goes on to observe that the Community regime is contrary to the principle of non-discrimi- nation embodied in Article 5 of the London Convention inasmuch as it applies only to Spanish nationals. The As regards the nature of the restrictions quota system imposed on Spanish imposed on Spanish fishermen, the fishermen is not applied to French vessels defendant in the main proceedings states and certainly not in the same way. Fur- in the first place that the Community thermore, advance control by means of a regulations adopted since 1977 make licensing system does not extend to every fishing by Spanish vessels, not only in the person fishing in the same zone, but is 12 to 200-mile zone but also in the 6 to applied only to Spanish fishermen. Sub- 12-mile zone, subject to the requirement sequent control by means of checking of a temporary licence for each vessel, catches taken by the vessels of Member which is granted restrictively and unilat- States was not introduced in the erally by the Commission for a limited Community until the adoption of area. In addition strict and complex Council Regulation (EEC) No 753/80 of quotas are imposed. Thus the Com- 26 March 1980 laying down detailed munity rules are incompatible with the rules for the recording and transmission right granted by the Franco-Spanish of information concerning catches taken

JUDGMENT OF 8. 12. 1981 — CASE 181/80

by fishing vessels of the Member States (Official Journal 1977 L 90, p. 8) only (Official Journal 1980 L 84, p. 33). after the adoption thereof, namely by a Finally, the various procedures for Note Verbale from the Commission of 6 implementing the licensing system April 1977. On that occasion the Spanish impose on Spanish fishermen constraints 'Government expressed its grave concern to which French fishermen are not about the content and the consequences subject, even when checks are carried of the measures adopted by the out after catches are landed. Community and reserved its position with respect thereto.

PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL v ARBELAIZ-EMAZABEL

He adds that, in so far as the regulations law, provided first that they bind the may be declared valid, the Court of Community as such and secondly that Justice lacks jurisdiction to decide they are of such a nature as to confer on whether they are enforceable against individuals the right to rely thereon in Spanish nationals, since such a question legal proceedings (cf. Joined Cases 21 to involves interpretation by the Court of 24/72 International Fruit Company provisions of international law which [1972] ECR 1219). Conversely the Court binds Member States outside the has no jurisdiction under Article 177 to framework of Community law (cf. rule on the interpretation of provisions judgment of 27 November 1973 in Case of international law which bind the 130/73 Vandeweghe [1973] ECR 1329). Member States outside the framework of Community law (cf. Case 130/73 Vendeweghe, cited above).

The French Government then examines The French Government recognizes that to what extent the Court may assess the the reasoning expounded by the Court in validity of the regulations at issue in the Burgoa may also be followed in this case. light of the conventions relied upon. In fact, from 1977 the Spanish auth- Pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty, orities collaborated closely with the the Court does in fact have jurisdiction Commission to ensure the implemen- to interpret provisions of international tation of the interim measures prior to

JUDGMENT OF 8. 12. 1981 — CASE 181/80

conclusion of the outline agreement of for the implementation of the necessary 15 April 1980 between Spain and the conservation measures. Where a Community. Since Spain consented to contracting party fails properly to fulfil the interim measures, which, moreover, its obligations under the Convention, make no distinction between the 6 to thus infringing the rights granted to 12-mile zone and the 12 to 200-mile the other contracting parties, the zone, there is no need to examine Convention itself lays down an arbi- whether it is consonant with an earlier tration procedure in Article 13 and situation which is no longer relevant. Annex II (cf. Joined Cases 21 to 24/72, cited above).

In fact, the Convention is addressed to The Council is of the opinion that as far the contracting parties in fairly general as the London Convention is concerned terms. In particular, Article 5 confers on that condition is fulfilled by Article 10 coastal States a wide discretionary power thereof. That article provides that:

PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL v ARBELAIZ-EMAZABEL

"Nothing in the present Convention shall the "transitional" rights envisaged for prevent the . . . establishment of a special the 3 to 6-mile zone. regime in matters of fisheries: (a) as between States, Members . . . of the European Economic Community". In fact the Member States signed the London Convention subject to the The Council then points out that, as in condition that it was not to prevent the the case of the classic exception made to establishment of the common fisheries the most-favoured-nation clause for the policy. Consequently, although the sake of customs unions, Article 10 of the London Convention is not binding upon London Convention purports to allow the Community as such, Article 10 departures from the rule of non-discrimi- thereof constitutes a "stipulation on nation contained in Article 5 for the behalf of others" upon which the benefit of the special Community regime. Community is entitled to rely. On that Although Article 10 does not allow such point, the Council refers to Article 36 of a regime to result in total negation of the the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 rights deriving from Article 3, it does on the Law of Treaties, according to enable the conservation measures which: "A right arises for a third State provided for in Article 5 to be applied from a provision of a Treaty if the differently depending on whether or not parties to the Treaty intend the provision the persons concerned have the benefit to accord that right either to the third of the special regime. In that regard, the State, or to a group of States to which it Council notes that there are certain belongs . . . and the third State assents parallels between the measures taken thereto." regarding Spanish fishermen and the special regime which has been developed for Community fishermen since the agreements entered into at The Hague in November 1976.

question, irrespective of whether the that respect, the Commission also refers events at issue took place within or to Article 10 of the London Convention. beyond the 12-mile limit. It emphasizes that according to that judgment it was not necessary, in order to assess the As regards enforceability of the validity of the interim measures adopted Community regulations against Spanish by the Community, to have regard to the fishermen, the Commission refers in regime applicable before the entry into particular to the prior consultations force of the Community provisions. In between the Community and Spain, fact, those provisions are based on the which were the subject of dispute before new relations between Spain and the the national courts. Community established following the extension of the fishing zones to 200 miles. Those consultations in fact took place at the time of the negotiations on the outline agreement on fisheries between According to the Commission, the the Community and Spain, which developments in the international law of commenced in December 1976. Thus, in the sea which led to the establishment of accordance with Article 5 (2) of the those new relations concern not only the London Convention, the prior consul- fishing zones between 12 and 200 miles tation on the licensing system — the but also the zones between 6 and 12 most contested aspect of the Community miles. In fact, as may be seen from the provisions — took place well before the decision of the International Court of introduction of that system by Council Justice of 25 July 1974 (United Kingdom Regulation No 746/77 of 5 April 1977. v Iceland, ICJ Reports 1974, p. 23), the The Commission further points out that change in the international law of the sea the term "consult" does not imply that a marked by the appearance of new prior agreement must be reached. customary rules first became apparent with regard to the waters adjacent to the territorial sea, that is to say in the 6 to Furthermore, it admits that during the 12-mile zone. negotiations Spain claimed in particular that the rights of its vessels to fish in the 6 to 12-mile zone should be maintained. However, in a declaration made when In the alternative, the Commission the outline agreement was initialled on maintains that the Community regu- 23 September 1978, Spain finally lations are compatible with the provisions recognized that "the provisions of the of the London Convention. Agreement are to be substituted for the provisions of the agreements concerning relations in respect of fisheries to which In that respect it states in essence that the Member States of the EEC and Spain the Community licensing system are parties". constitutes an appropriate method of supervising the enforcement of conser- vation measures in accordance with In this regard, the Commission states Article 5 of the London Convention; in that the exception regarding the 6 to particular it ensures observance of catch 12-mile zone, which was dealt with in its quotas by the vessels of non-member Note Verbale to the Spanish Mission of countries which, as a rule, return to their 4 July 1977 — referred to by the accused ports of origin to land their catches. In in the main proceedings — could only

Decision

1 By judgment of 7 July 1980, received at the C o u r t on 25 August 1980, the French C o u r t de Cassation [Court of Cassation] referred a question to the C o u r t of Justice under Article 177 of the E E C T r e a t y concerning the validity, and the enforceability against Spanish nationals, of certain Council regulations, in particular Council Regulation (EEC) N o 2 1 6 0 / 7 7 of 30 September 1977 laying down certain interim measures for the conservation and management of fishery resources applicable to vessels flying the flag of Spain (Official Journal 1977 L 250, p. 17).

JUDGMENT OF 8. 12. 1981 — CASE 181/80

2 The question was raised in criminal proceedings against the master of a fishing vessel flying the flag of Spain, who was charged with fishing on 3 November 1977 in French territorial waters off Bayonne in the area between 6 and 12 nautical miles from the coast, without being in possession of the fishing licence required by Article 3 of Regulation No 2160/77.

3 The Tribunal de Grande Instance [Regional Court], Bayonne, acquitted the accused and its judgment was upheld by the Cour d'Appel [Court of Appeal], Pau. The latter found that the accused had indeed been discovered fishing without a licence in the 6 to 12 mile-zone, but considered that he was authorized to fish there by the General Agreement on Fishing concluded between France and Spain by an exchange of notes on 20 March 1967 (Journal Officiel de la République Française of 4 August 1967, p. 7807), which was still in force at the material time.

4 Under that Agreement Spanish nationals "enjoy a permanent right to fish" for all species in the area between 6 and 12 miles off the Atlantic coast of France, from the mouth of the Bidassoa to the parallel which passes through the northernmost part of Belle-Ile. Paragraph V of the Agreement states that it was concluded within the framework of the voisinage arrangements provided for in the London Fisheries Convention of 9 March 1964 (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 581, No 8432), to which France and Spain are parties.

8 It should first be observed that, as the Court has already stated in earlier cases, for example in its judgment of 14 July 1976 (Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6/76 Kramer [1976] ECR 1279), it is clear from the corpus of Community law applicable to fishing that the Community has, at internal level, the power to take any measures for the conservation of the living resources of the sea, including measures fixing catch quotas, and that, accordingly, it is also competent to enter into international commitments pursuing that objective.

9 However, in the above-mentioned judgment the Court added that, in the period before the Community fully exercised its functions in this field, the Member States had the power to assume certain international commitments relating to the conservation of the living resources of the sea and that they were entitled to ensure fulfilment of those commitments within the area of their jurisdiction. In the same judgment the Court made clear that the Member States' powers in that respect were purely transitional in character and lapsed upon expiry of the period of 6 years stipulated in Article 102 of

JUDGMENT OF 8. 12. 1981 — CASE 181/80

the Act of Accession of 1972, that is to say on 31 December 1978. During that period, the Community institutions had in fact to determine the conditions subject to which fishing might be carried on with a view to ensuring protection of stocks and conservation of the living resources of the sea.

10 The London Convention was ratified by France on 5 July 1965, that is to say at a time when the Community had not yet adopted any regulations on sea fishing. Therefore, from the point of view of Community law, France could validly sign that Convention and also the bilateral Agreement of 1967 with Spain which, according to paragraph V thereof and according to the French Government, was concluded in implementation of the Convention.

15 The scheme for the conservation of the resources of the sea was established by the Community at a time when international law in relation to fishing was undergoing profound changes. It was in order to take into account the general development of international law at that time that the Member States decided, by concerted action agreed upon within the Council, to extend their fishing limits to 200 miles from the baselines. By a resolution of 3 November 1976 on certain external aspects of the creation of a 200-mile fishing zone in the Community with effect from 1 January 1977 (published in Official Journal 1981 C 105, p. 1), the Council, having stressed the need for immediate action by the Community to protect its legitimate interests in the sea areas most threatened as a result of the extension of fishing limits by non-member countries, decided that as from 1 January 1977 the exploitation of fishery resources in those areas by fishing vessels of non-member countries was to be governed by agreements between the Community and the non- member countries concerned.

16 In the same resolution, the Council instructed the Commission to start negotiations immediately with the non-member countries affected by the Community conservation measures, with a view to 'reconciling the needs of conservation with the interests of fishermen traditionally operating in the waters in question. Negotiations between the Commission and Spain were commenced on 3 December 1976. They led to the Agreement on Fisheries between the European Economic Community and the Government of Spain, which was initialled on 23 September 1978 and signed on 15 April 1980 (Official Journal 1980 C 263, p. 1).

21 The Agreement allows each of the parties to adopt, within the fishing zones falling under its jurisdiction, the measures necessary to ensure rational management of the living resources of the sea, including measures fixing catch quotas and requiring that fishing be subject to licence.

22 All the events which occurred after the adoption of the Council Resolution of 3 November 1976, pending the definitive entry into force of the Agreement, must be taken into account in any assessment of the legal situation existing during that period, in particular in an assessment of the

PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL v ARBELAIZ-EMAZABEL

validity of the various Community regulations affecting the operations of Spanish vessels in the fishing zones of the Member States.

23 It should be emphasized in this regard that the first of those regulations, Council Regulation (EEC) No 373/77 of 24 February 1977 laying down certain interim measures for the conservation and management of fishery resources applicable to vessels flying the flag of certain non-member countries (Official Journal 1977 L 53, p. 1), was adopted, as indicated in the sixth recital in the preamble thereto, "pending the conclusion of the fishing agreements currently being negotiated with these countries".

24 That regulation was confined to the fixing of quotas and the licensing system was not introduced until the adoption of Council Regulation (EEC) No 746/77 of 5 April 1977 extending the application for Spain, Finland and Portugal of certain provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 373/77 (Official Journal 1977 L 90, p. 8). That occurred several months after the commencement of negotiations between the Community and Spain on the same matter.

28 As regards the application of Regulation No 2160/77, it appears from the documents before the Court that the Spanish Mission to the European Communities passed the list of licence applications to the Commission and that the licences granted were distributed by the Spanish authorities.

29 From the foregoing considerations it follows that the interim regime which the Community set up under its own rules falls within the framework of the relations established between the Community and Spain in order to resolve the problems inherent in conservation measures and the extension of fishery limits and in order to ensure reciprocal access by fishermen to the waters subject to such measures.

30 Those relations, which were confirmed by the Agreement on Fisheries concluded between the Community and Spain and were progressively developed with the concurrence of the Spanish authorities following the decisions which the Community and the Member States thereof adopted in 1976 in order to deal with the increasingly urgent need to conserve the living resources of the sea and to take into account the general evolution of inter- national law in the field of sea fishing, replaced the prior international obligations existing between certain Member States, such as France, and Spain.

31 Accordingly, Spanish fishermen may not rely on prior international agreements between France and Spain in order to prevent the application of the interim regulations adopted by the Community in the event of any incompatibility between the two categories of provisions.

PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL v ARBELAIZ-EMAZABEL

Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2160/77 of 30 September 1977 laying down certain interim measures for the conservation and management of fishery resources applicable to vessels flying the flag of Spain (Official Journal 1977 L 250, p. 17). The provisions of that regulation are enforceable against Spanish nationals.

Mertens de Wilmars Bosco Touffait

Due Pescatore Mackenzie Stuart O'Keeffe

Koopmans Everling Chloros Grévisse

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 8 December 1981.

A. Van Houtte J. Mertens de Wilmars Registrar President