C-13/82

JUDGMENT OF 28. 10. 1982 — JOINED CASES 13 TO 28/82

In Joined Cases 13 to 28 / 82

REFERENCES to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Cour d'Appel [ Court of Appeal ], Rennes , for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

JOSÉ ARANTZAMENDI-OSA , Ondarroa , Spain, AND OTHERS

and

PROCUREUR DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE [Public Prosecutor at the Tribunal de Grande Instance] AND PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL [Public Prosecutor at the Cour d'Appel]

Facts and issues

The facts of the case, the course of I — Facts and written procedure the procedure and the observations submitted under Article 20 of the 1. Mr Arantzamendi-Osa and certain Protocol on the Statute of the Court of other Spanish fishermen were found Justice of the EEC may be summarized guilty by various judgments of the as follows: Tribunal de Grande Instance [Regional

ARANTZAMENDI-OSA v PROCUREUR DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE

Court], Lorient, and of the Tribunal de States of the Community extended their Grande Instance, Quimper, of offences fishing zones with effect from 1 January against the legislation on fishing. They 1977 to 200 miles off their North Sea were discovered fishing in the French and North Atlantic coasts. economic zone extending between 12 and 200 miles from the coast without Thus in the case of France Decree No holding the fishing licence required by 77-130 of 11 February 1977, issued the Community regulations applicable to pursuant to Law No 76-655 of 16 July vessels flying the flag of Spain. 1976, creates an economic zone off the North Sea, English Channel and Atlantic coasts of the territory of the French The defendants appealed to the Cour Republic, from the Franco-Belgian d'Appel [Court of Appeal], Rennes, and frontier to the Franco-Spanish frontier, challenged the validity of the Com­ from the outside limit of the territorial munity rules at issue in relation to prior waters to a line 188 nautical miles international obligations. beyond that limit.

JUDGMENT OF 28. 10. 1982 — JOINED CASES 13 TO 28/82

conclusion of framework agreements on measures for the conservation and fisheries between the Community and management of fishery resources those non-member countries interim applicable to vessels flying the flag of measures were initially adopted. Spain (Official Journal L 168, p. 27); with regard to Cases 16 and 24/82 the period of validity of the licences issued in accordance with this regulation was Having regard to the date when the facts extended until 31 January 1981 by Regu­ occurred in each of those cases the lation No 3305/80 of 17 December 1980 Community regime applicable is (Official Journal L 344, p. 33).

For the period between 1 February and in Cases 14/82 (date of the facts: 4 April 4 March 1981, during which the facts 1980), 15/82 (date of the facts: 17 April concerned in Cases 13/82 (2 February 1980), 18/82 (date of the facts: 3 June 1981) and 28/82 (14 February 1981) 1980), 19/82 (date of the facts: 6 May occurred, no Community regulation 1980), 20/82 (date of the facts: 15 making provision for the issue of licences March 1980) 21/82 (date of the facts: 30 to Spanish vessels was adopted. May 1980), 25, 26 and 27/82 (date of the facts: 17 May 1980), Council Regu­ lation (EEC) No 541/80 of 3 March 1980 laying down certain interim (c) The framework agreement, namely measures for the conservation and the Agreement on Fisheries concluded management of fishery resources between the EEC and Spain, was applicable to vessels flying the flag of initialled on 23 September 1978 and Spain (Official Journal L 60, p. 1); signed on 15 April 1980. The Agreement was approved in the name of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3062/80 of 25 November in ('ases 16 and 24/82 (date of the facts: 1980 on the conclusion of the Agreement 5 January 1981), 17/82 (date of the on Fisheries between the European Econ­ facts: 16 August 1980) and 22/82 (date omic Community and the Government ol' du· facts: 2 August 1980) Council of Spain (Official Journal L 322, p. 3). Rcgulaiion (EEC) No 1719/80 of 30 On completion of the ratification |imi- 1980 laying down for 1980 certain procedure in Spain the Agreement

ARANTZAMENDI-OSA v PROCUREUR DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE

(1) The purpose of this Agreement is to (i) the advantage of preserving the establish the principles and rules which traditional characteristics of fishery will govern, in all respects, the fishing activities in the frontier coastal activities of vessels of either party within areas; the fishing zones falling under the jurisdiction of the other party. (ii) the need to minimize the difficulties encountered by the party whose fishing possibilities may be reduced in the course of achieving the above-mentioned balance; Article 2 (iii) all other relevant factors. Each party shall grant access to the fishing zone falling under its jurisdiction to the fishing vessels of the other party (2) Each party shall be able to take any under the conditions laid down by the other measures to ensure the conser­ following articles. vation and rational management of resources in the fishing zones falling under its jurisdiction. Such measures Article 3 when taken following the annual fixing of the other party's fishing possibilities, (1) Each party shall determine each should not be such as to compromise the year, for the fishing zone falling under effective operation of fishing. its jurisdiction, subject to adjustments necessitated by unforeseen circum­ stances, and on the basis of the need for Article 4 rational management of the biological resources: Each party may require that in the fishing zone falling under its jurisdiction (a) the total allowable catch for fishing by vessels of the other party shall individual stocks or complexes of be subject to licence. stocks, taking into account the most reliable scientific information avail­ The competent authorities of each party able to it, the interdependence of shall communicate to the other party the stocks, the work of appropriate name, registration number and other international organizations and other relevant particulars of vessels requesting relevant factors; authorization to fish in the fishing zone

By order of 20 January 1982 the Court (d) The prior international obligations decided to join Cases 13 to 28/82 for the raised by the defendants in the main purposes of the procedure and judgment. proceedings before the national court concern in particular the following agreements to which France and Spain By order of 29 June 1982 the Court, are parties: pursuant to Article 95 (1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure, decided to refer the joined cases to the First Chamber. The London Fisheries Convention of 9 March 1964 (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 581, No 8432) and the Upon hearing the report of the Judge- Agreement on Fisheries between France Rapporteur and the views of the and Spain of 20 March 1967 concluded Advocate General, the Court decided to in implementation of Article 9 (2) of the open the oral procedure without any London Convention which relates to preparatory inquiry. voisinage arrangements; and

The Geneva Convention of 29 April 1958 on Fishing and Conservation of the II — Summary of the written Living Resources of the High Seas observations submitted to (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 559, the Court No 8164).

substituted for the regime which pre­ issue in the present cases occurred viously applied in those zones ..." between 14 January 1980 and 14 (paragraph 18 of the decision). The February 1981, that is during a period French Government proposes that the beginning shortly before the signature of Court should restrict itself to confirming the Agreement on Fisheries between the that decision and consequently rule that, EEC and Spain and terminating while it with regard to Cases 14 to 27/82, was provisionally applicable. consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the regulations at issue and that the provisions of those regulations are enforceable against Spanish nationals. As the Council has previously indicated, it does not consider that Spanish fishermen may rely upon prior inter­ national obligations as against the application of the Community regu­ With regard to Cases 13 and 28/82, the lations in question. The close collab­ facts of which occurred in a period for oration of the Spanish authorities with which no regulation made provision for the Community throughout the time the issue of licences to Spanish fisher­ when the Agreement was being men, the French Government points out negotiated shows tacit acceptance, whilst that Council Regulation (EEC) No signature of the Agreement shows 554/81 of 27 February 1981 (Official express acceptance, of the new reciprocal Journal L 37, p. 1) states in the fifth relations between the Community and recital in the preamble thereto that Spain in the field of fisheries. With fishing by Community vessels in the regard to Cases 14 to 27/82 the Council fishing zones of Member States was consequently suggests that the judgment "authorized, during the period 1 to of 8 December 1981 cited above should 31 January 1981 by Regulation (EEC) be followed. No 3305/80" but that "such fishing has been interrupted since 1 February 1981". Such fishing thus could not lawfully be resumed until the entry into force of the said Regulation No 554/81, that is to say on 4 March 1981. With regard to the period between 1 February and 3 March 1981 in which the facts at issue in Cases 13 and 28/82 took place the Council refers to its obser­ vations in Case 137/81 and claims that In this connection the French the Community rules did not provide any Government refers furthermore to the possibility for Spanish fishermen to observations which it submitted in Case obtain a licence since relations between 137/81, which gave rise to the same the Community and Spain concerning problem. fishing were interrupted. That inter­ ruption nevertheless did not entail freedom to fish since French legislation expressly prohibits fishing in territorial waters and the economic zone except The Council of the European Com- with an authorization granted in munities states first of all that the facts at accordance with Community law.

In the light of the framework agreement concluded between the Community and Spain which has been applied pro­ It considers furthermore that the visionally since 15 April 1980 the solution, which is based on the Commission considers that the replacement by the interim measures Community was entitled to suspend resulting from the new relationship fishing by Spanish vessels in the absence between Spain and the Community of of agreement by the Spanish authorities the rules previously applicable in the to the proposed conditions. By notes fishing zones in order to take account of verbales of 23 December 1980 and of 30 the evolution of international law, may January 1981 it pointed out to the be adopted as such in Cases 13 and Spanish delegation the need to complete 28/82. The fact that the Court has found in good time the consultations on the that the new regime replaced the former fishing arrangements for 1981 and, rules also justifies the suspension of following the suspension of consultations fishing by Spanish vessels between by the Spanish delegation, it also

ARANTZAMENDI-OSA v PROCUREUR DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE

2 The question was raised in criminal proceedings against certain masters of fishing vessels registered in Spain, who were fined by the Tribunal de Grande Instance [Regional Court], Lorient, and by the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Quimper, for fishing in waters within the French economic zone without being in possession of a fishing licence.

JUDGMENT OF 28. 10. 1982 — JOINED CASES 13 TO 28/82

3 The defendants in the main proceedings were discovered fishing in the zone between 12 and 200 nautical miles from the baseline on various dates during the period between 14 January 1980 and 14 February 1981.

4 The Tribunal de Grande Instance, Lorient, and the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Quimper, imposed fines on the defendants, having found that they were unable to produce the licence required by the Community regulations and that in those circumstances the fishing in which they had engaged constituted an offence created and punished by French criminal legislation.

5 Before the Cour d'Appel the defendants challenged the validity of the Community regulations, which render fishing by vessels flying the flag of Spain conditional upon holding a licence, on the ground that their fishing rights are recognized by virtue of international obligations previously entered into between France and Spain.

6 For the year 1980 the Council first of all extended until 31 January 1980 the period of the validity of fishing licences issued pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1177/79 of 12 June 1979 laying down for 1979 certain measures for the conservation and management of fishery resources applicable to vessels flying the flag of Spain (Official Journal L 151, p. 1). That extension was laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2897/79 of 18 December 1979 (Official Journal L 362, p. 2). New interim measures for conservation and management applicable to Spanish vessels were laid down for the year 1980 by Council Regulations (EEC) No 541/80 and No 1719/80 of 3 March 1980 and of 30 June 1980 respectively (Official Journal L 60, p. 1 and Official Journal L 168, p. 27).

10 Accordingly the provisions of the regulations at issue were part of the progressive creation of new reciprocal relations between the Community and Spain in the field of sea-fishing which were substituted for the regime pre­ viously applicable to fishing on the high seas. In these circumstances Spanish fishermen may not rely on prior international commitments as between France and Spain in order to prevent the application of the interim regu­ lations adopted by the Community in the event of any incompatibility between the two categories of provisions.

11 Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulations No 1177/79, No 2897/79, No 541/80, No 1719/80, No 3305/80 and No 554/81. The provisions of those regulations are enforceable against Spanish nationals.

JUDGMENT OF 28. 10. 1982 — JOINED CASES 13 TO 28/82

Costs

12 The costs incurred by the French Government and by the Council and the Commission of the European Communities, which submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of a step in the proceedings pending before the national court the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

H. A. Rühl A. O'Keeffe Principal Administrator President of the First Chamber