C-24/83

JUDGMENT OF 14. 2. 1984 — CASE 24/83

which has to be consulted at all stages conformity with the procedural and of the procedure. substantive conditions laid down by Community law. 2. No fresh consultation of the Com- The notification of new national mission is required in the case of the measures nevertheless continues to re-enactment, without substantive be necessary, in order that the amendment, of a national measure for Commission may be accurately the conservation of fishery resources informed of the state of the law in which was previously adopted in force in the various Member States.

In Case 24/83,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court of Justiciary, Scotland, for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

WOLFGANG GEWIESE AND MANFRIED MEHLICH

and

GEWIESE AND MEHLICH ν SCOTT MACKENZIE

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

The facts of the case, the course of procedure provided for in Article 43 (2) the procedure and the observations of the Treaty on a proposal from the submitted pursuant to Article 20 of the Commission, may adopt the necessary Protocol on the Statute of the Court of conservation measures." Justice of the EEC may be summarized as follows: At its meeting on 30 October 1976 in The Hague the Council drew up and formally adopted on 3 November 1976 a resolution to the effect that the Member I — Facts and w r i t t e n p r o c e d u r e States would by concerted action extend as from 1 January 1977 their fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles off their North 1. Legislative background to the main proceedings Sea and North Atlantic coasts.

The Council also agreed to a Com­ Article 102 of the Act concerning the mission declaration (Annex VI to the Conditions of Accession and the Resolution of 3 November 1976) worded Adjustments to the Treaties provides that as follows: from the sixth year after the accession at the latest, that is to say, from 1 January 1979, the Council, acting on a proposal "Pending the implementation of the from the Commission, is to determine Community measures at present in conditions for fishing with a view to preparation relating to the conservation ensuring protection of the fishing of resources, the Member States will not grounds and the conservation of the take any unilateral measures in respect of biological resources of the sea. the conservation of resources.

Any such measures shall not prejudice On 4 May 1981 the United Kingdom the guidelines to be adopted for the Government notified two statutory in- implementation of Community provisions struments to the Commission: The West on the conservation of resources." Coast Herring (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1981 (S.I: 1981/585) and the North Coast (Prohibition of Herring On 18 February 1977 the Council Fishing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) adopted Regulation No 350/77 laying 1981 (S.I. 1981/100), which had entered down certain interim measures for the into force on 1 May and 27 April 1981 conservation and management of fishery respectively and were intended only to resources (Official Journal 1977, L 48, correct a technical error noted in the p. 28). West Coast Herring (Prohibition of Fishing) Order of 3 July 1978 (S.I. 1978/ At its meeting on 30 and 31 January 930) (hereinafter referred to as "the 1978, the Council reached agreement 1978 Order"). upon the following declaration: The 1978 Order, which prohibited herring fishing in the area designated "The Council of the European Com- Division VI by the International Council munities approved the Commission for Exploration of the Sea (hereinafter communication according to which, in referred to as "ICES Divison VI(a)") the absence of a common system, had been adopted on the basis of the national measures could only be taken in Commission proposal submitted to the so far as they were strictly necessary Council on 16 June 1978 to reduce to for the conservation and management zero, in accordance with the ICES of fishery resources, were non-dis- recommendations, the total allowable criminatory and in conformity with the catch of herrings in that division. Treaty, and if the approval of the Although at its meeting of 21 June 1978 Commission had been sought before- the Council was unable to reach any hand" (Official Journal 1978, C 154, agreement on the Commission proposal, p. 5). the Commission expressly approved the 1978 Order on 22 December 1978. It is apparent from the foregoing that so long as the Community fails to exercise On 27 May 1981 the Commission asked this exclusive competence it is still the United Kingdom Government to possible for Member States to take explain why the 1978 Order had been measures of limited scope, provided they corrected. comply with certain rules of substance and procedure. By letter dated 1 July 1981, the United Kingdom Government stated that the With regard to substance, the measures error, which came to light in proceedings must be necessary for the purpose of before the Divisional Court in England conservation of fishery resources. With and gave rise to a finding by that court regard to the procedural rules, these that the 1978 Order was partially invalid, derive from the duty to facilitate the derived from the fact that the small area achievement of the Community's task, of water which lay on the Northern imposed by Article 5 of the Treaty and Ireland side of the median line between made specific in Annex VI to the Hague Scotland and Northern Ireland to which Resolution, and also of the task of that order applied was not within the supervision entrusted to the Commission scope of the enabling powers of the Sea by Article 155 of the Treaty. Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. The error

Referring in the first place to the 1981 On 10 July 1981 two German fishing proposals to increase the total allowable boats were arrested by the United catch of herring in ICES Division VI(a) Kingdom authorities whilst fishing for from zero to 65 000 tonnes, of which herring to the west of Scotland in ICES 55 000 tonnes would be available to the Division VI(a). Community, submitted to the Council on 12 June and 24 July on the basis of the report of the Herring Working Group On the complaint of the Procurator given at the ICES meeting (27 April to Fiscal, Stornoway, the masters of the 5 May 1981) and the recommendations vessels, Manfred Mehlich and Wolfgang of the ICES Advisory Committee on Gewiese, were, in the Sheriff Court at Fishery Management (hereinafter re­ Stornoway, tried for and convicted of a ferred to as "the Advisory Committee") contravention of the 1981 Order. The made on 3 July 1981, the Commission accused were admonished and their stated that it was unable to approve the catches were confiscated. United Kingdom 1981 measures as they were no longer justified by the require­ ments of conservation. The Commission Those convictions were brought under stated that the same applied to the review by the High Court of Justiciary, provisions of the other United Kingdom Scotland, by way of Stated Case, inter orders adopted in 1977 and 1978. alia on the ground that the 1981 Order was invalid under Community law.

enacted remain made and maintained in and the latter's approval of the conformity with Community law in measure before its entry into force) the absence of express Commission are only mandatory in respect of new approval?" measures and not when an earlier measure has been re-enacted without The request for a preliminary ruling was subsantial amendment. The Com- registered at the Court Registry on 16 mission is requested to specify the February 1983. decision or decisions to which it refers. Pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court (EEC), written 2. It appears from the written obser- observations were submitted by the vations that, following its meeting of United Kingdom and the Procurator 16 December 1980, the Council Fiscal, Stornoway, represented by Peter requested that for 1981 Member Fraser, Solicitor General for Scotland States should act on the basis of and W. H. Godwin, Treasury Solicitor's the Commission's proposals of 18 Department, acting as Agents, by the November and 16 December 1980 for Government of the Federal Republic of a negative total allowable catch and Germany, represented by Martin Seidel, that, following its meeting on 27 Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry March 1981, it requested that, in for the Economy, by Rudolf Iiling, Mini- order to avoid serious consequences, sterialrat in the Federal Ministry of Member States should adopt for 1981 Food, Agriculture and Forests and appropriate conservation measures, as by Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, in previous years. The Commission Cologne, acting as Agents, and by is asked to state whether those the Commission of the European statements were the subject of formal Communities, represented by Richard decisions. Wainwright, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent. 3. The Commission is requested to inform the Court of the date on Upon hearing the report of the Judge- which effect, was given to the United Rapporteur and the views of the Kingdom's statement of 12 August Advocate General, the Court decided, 1981 in which it announced its in accordance with Article 21 of the intention to repeal the disputed Protocol on the Statute and Article 45 of provisions which entered into force the Rules of Procedure, to prescribe on 1 May 1981. measures of inquiry. The Commission complied with that By letter of 17 October 1983, the request within the above time-limit, Registrar of the Court asked the namely on 3 November 1983. Commission to reply before 4 November 1983 to the following questions:

The United Kingdom points out that the As regards substance, the measures 1978 Order had been approved by the adopted must be necessary for conser­ Commission on 22 December 1978 and vation. In that connection the United goes on to emphasize that the 1981 Kingdom emphasizes that since 1978 the Order was adopted "without substantive situation, which had not changed by amendment" of the previous order. The 1981, required a prohibition of herring 1978 and 1981 instruments thus rep­ fishing in ICES Division VI(a). The resent one single measure, in the sense of Commission moreover made a proposal that concept in the case-law of the to that effect for 1981, on the basis of Court. In the opinion of the United the most recent scientific knowledge and Kingdom, which refers to paragraph 4 of advice. In the view of the United the judgment of 5 May 1981 in Case Kingdom, it is moreover for that reason 804/79 Commission ν United Kingdom that the Commission made no objection [1981] ECR 1045, the 1978 Order or reservation in the weeks following the remained valid in so far as it conformed notification of the 1981 instruments. to the series of interim measures adopted from time to time by the Council and the statements in Council minutes. The United Kingdom considers that the As regards procedure, the United approval given to the 1978 Order must Kingdom recognizes that, in so far as the be taken to extend to the 1981 Order 1981 Order entered into force three days which was notified to the Commission as before it was notified to the Commission, required by Article 3 of Council Regu­ the obligation of detailed consultation lation No 101/76 of 19 January 1976. laid down in Annex VI to the Hague Resolution was not formally fulfilled. The United Kingdom considers however that that obligation is not an absolute The United Kingdom considers, in the one but must depend on the nature of second place, that the 1981 Order is in the particular measure which, in this conformity with Community law as case, was merely a formal amendment of regards both its content and the pro­ an order previously approved by the cedures by which it was adopted and Commission. brought into force.

the circumstances which gave rise to the The United Kingdom declares that it is main proceedings, in case the problem unable to accept that the mere existence should be raised before or by the Court. of the Commission proposals, which on the date of the offences committed by There are two reasons: the sequence of the appellants in the main proceedings, events on the one hand and the division that is to say 10 July 1981, had not yet of powers as between the Commission been considered by the Council, could and the Council on the other. have deprived the 1981 Order of legal force under Community law. The United Kingdom states that on 5 May, that is to say the day after the The United Kingdom emphasizes that notification of the 1981 Order, an ICES the Commission's proposals are ad- working group recommended a positive dressed exclusively to the Council and total allowable catch for ICES Division not to the Member States. VI(a). That recommendation was not then examined by the Advisory Com- The United Kingdom further observes mittee, which converts recommendations that although the Council's failure to act of the working group into definitive entitles the Member States to take the advice. In the opinion of the United appropriate measures, that failure to act Kingdom, the Advisory Committee should not be presumed and the Council frequently modifies recommendations of should be allowed a reasonable period the working group. upon the expiry of which it may be found that there was such a failure. The On 12 June the Commission amended its United Kingdom considers in that proposal for the 1981 total allowable connection that the lapse of time catch, which had not yet been adopted between the first Commission proposal, by the Council, from zero to 65 000 made on 12 June 1981 and, on the one tonnes, of which 55 000 would be hand, 29 June, the date on which the available for the Community. authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany issued fishing licences and, on On 3 July the Advisory Committee gave the other hand, 10 July, the date of the its definitive scientific advice, endorsing offences committed by the appellants in the working group's recommendation of the main proceedings, cannot justify the 5 May and increasing the total allowable adoption by the Member States of new catch to 65 000 tonnes. measures in that field.

account of the total allowable catch necessary" for the conservation and proposed by the Commission, and on the management of fishery resources and "if basis of the Commission's proposal dated the approval of the Commission [has] 12 June 1981, that it decided on 29 June been sought beforehand". According to 1981 to grant fishing licences for herring the judgment of 5 May 1981 cited above, in ICES Division VI(a). Those licences that principle derives from the transfer of were issued on the understanding that powers from the Member States to the they might be withdrawn at any time and Community which, with regard to the on the condition that the quantity of conservation of fishery resources, has each catch was to be notified in order to been total and definitive since 1 Tanuarv ensure that German fishermen were not 1979. able to procure unfair advantages.

Federal Republic of Germany states that proposal of 12 June 1981 in which the the absolute prohibition of fishing Commission declared that it was "necessary to re-open the herring-fishing renewed by the 1981 Order was no grounds west of Scotland as soon as longer justified in so far as, in view of possible". the scientific information produced at the beginning of that year, it was no longer, in the terms of the Council Before considering whether the 1981 declarations of 30 and 31 January 1978, Order is compatible with Community "strictly necessary" for the management law, the Government of the Federal and conservation of fishery resources. Republic of Germany reviews the legislative and case-law background in its Following on from this, it argues in the entirety which,_ in its opinion, must be first place that whilst for the years 1979, borne in mind in answering the question 1980 and 1981 the Commission proposed submitted for a preliminary ruling. that the Council should maintain the total allowable catch for herring in ICES The Government of the Federal Republic Division VI(a) at zero, it was known to of Germany emphasizes in particular that specialists in the field from the first by virtue of the Hague Resolution and months of 1981 that the stock of the Council's declaration issued at the herrings in that area had considerably end of its meeting of 30 and 31 January exceeded the level indicated in earlier 1978, national measures can only be ICES opinions as a pre-condition for the taken in so far as they are "strictly resumption of fishing.

Thus, in the absence of any such need, As regards observance of procedural the United Kingdom Government ought requirements, the Government of the to have acted as a "trustee of the Federal Republic of Germany considers common interest", taking into account that the 1981 Order was adopted in the objective of the common fisheries breach of the obligations to give notice policy which is intended not only to of and obtain approval for it before maintain certain stocks of fish but also to bringing it into force. use existing resources as rationally as

change inevitably over the years and must therefore be reconsidered in detail The absolute nature of the obligation to - in the light of the most recent scientific consult the Commission before bringing data produced at least once each year. the national measure into force reflects Moreover, the fisheries policy operates the transfer of powers to the Community on a yearly basis. and the Commission's supervisory task under Article 155 of the Treaty. It is for that reason that the Commission must be enabled "to undertake an appropriate In the opinion of the Government of the examination of the measures con- Federal Republic of Germany, the fact templated" (judgment of 16. 12. 1981 in that, on the one hand, at the end of the Case 269/80 Tymen [1981] ECR 3079, meeting of 16 December 1980 the at p. 3093, paragraph 13) and "to weigh Council stated that for 1981 the Member up all the implications of the provisions States should take account of the proposed" (judgment of 5. 5. 1981 in Commission's proposals on total allow- Case 804/79, cited above, paragraph 35). able catches dated 18 November and 16 December 1980 and that, on the other hand, in its statement of 27 March 1981 the Council noted that, out of a desire to avoid serious disruptions, the Member According to the Government of the States would take measures similar to Federal Republic of Germany, it is those which they had taken in previous apparent from the foregoing that if a years, does not in any way detract from Member State adopts a national fisheries that observation. Those statements could conservation measure by presenting the not relieve the Member States of their Commission with a fait accompli, -it is obligation not to renew the earlier exceeding its powers and disregarding an measures until they had examined the essential procedural requirement within most recent scientific information and the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty, taken into account the Commission's as interpreted by the Court in particular proposals drawn up on the basis thereof. in its judgment of 29 October 1980 in

Expanding on that observation, the The Government of the Federal Republic Government of the Federal Republic of of Germany emphasizes the fact that the Germany refers to the principle upheld question whether approval given sub­ by the Court in its four judgments of 11 sequently by the Commission remedies December 1973 (Case 120/73 Lorenz the breach of the duty of consultation is [1973] ECR 1471; Case 121/73 irrelevant in so far as that argument was Markmann [1973] ECR 1495; Case rejected by the Court in paragraph 37 of 122/7'3 Nordsee, Deutsche Hochsee­ the judgment of 5 May 1981 cited above fischerei [1973] ECR 1511; Case 141/73 and since in any case no such authori­ Fritz Lohrey [1973] ECR 1527), accord­ zation was given to the United Kingdom ing to which breach of the obligation to Government. give notice of aid measures, in accordance with Article 93 (3) of the Concluding its observations, the Govern­ Treaty, confers rights on individuals ment of the Federal Republic of which the national courts are bound to Germany states that even if the adoption safeguard. That principle, which may be of the 1981 Order was not contrary to transposed to the present case, auth­ Community law, its retention after the orizes the appellants in the main Commission's proposal of 12 June 1981 proceedings to claim that the 1981 Order and its application beyond 10 July 1981 is not applicable to them. are incontestably contrary to Community law. The Government of the Federal Republic of. Germany considers that even if the Retention of the 1981 Order was lack of prior consultation is not sufficient improper because of the importance to entail the "illegality" of the 1981 attached to the Commission's proposals Order, such illegality must derive from in the event of the Council's failing to the lack of prior authorization by the act. The fact that the Commission Commission. proposal is discussed by the Council or that the Council does not reach an In support of that view, the Government agreement in no way affects the legal of the Federal Republic of Germany nature of the proposal. refers to the observations of the Commission in Case 804/79, cited In that connection the Government of above, to the effect that the Member the Federal Republic of Germany States are not entitled in any circum­ observes that the Commission's proposal stances to adopt measures other than of 12 June 1981, which was expressly those which it has proposed or approved based on the necessity of re-opening (judgment of 5. 5. 1981, [1981] ECR herring-fishing in ICES Division VI(a) 1057). It refers in the second place to the very soon and was based on the judgment of 16 December 1981 in Case recommendations of the ICES Herring 269/80 Tymen [1981] ECR 3079, in Working-Group continued to be a point which the Court held to be contrary to of departure of which the Member States Community law a national conservation should take account in accordance with measure the content of which cor­ Article 5 of the Treaty with a view to responded essentially to the Com­ concerted Community action which mission's proposals but which had been required, if not the annulment of the adopted without the latter's approval. It 1981 Order, then at least the non- is apparent from that judgment that such application thereof.

"The adoption of a national conser­ "If a person against whom criminal vation measure which according to the proceedings are brought on the ground existing scientific information is ob­ that he has infringed that national jectively unnecessary and which has been conservation measure is found to be in a enacted by a Member State without prior position where a mistake was unavoid­ consultation with the Commission and able, that fact is to be regarded as a without the latter's approval is in­ ground excluding culpability." compatible with Community law even if it replaces a conservation measure of broadly similar scope which was adopted The Commission, having described the at an earlier date in conformity with legislative context of the main pro­ Community law. The retention of a ceedings, states that the question national conservation measure which was submitted by the High Court of Jus­ approved by the Commission several ticiary for a preliminary ruling - is years earlier ceases in any case to be essentially concerned with the status compatible with Community law from under Community law of a national the time when it is no longer objectively conservation measure which re-enacts necessary according to existing scientific without substantive amendment a information and the Commission has previous measure but which had not submitted in the light of that information received express Commission approval. a proposal with which the national conservation measure conflicts." The Commission states that that question is based on two correct hypotheses, namely on the one hand that the 1978 If the question submitted to the Court is Order was made and maintained in answered in the affirmative, contrary to conformity with Community law until the view set out above, the Government 1 May 1981, since that Order was of the Federal Republic of Germany consistent with the guidelines laid down wishes that answer to be accompanied, in by the Council at its meeting in March. accordance with the case-law of the 1981 and, on the other hand, that the Court, by all information necessary for 1981 Order amounted to no more than a appraisal from the point of view of re-enactment of the 1978 Order. Community law. In its opinion it is thus necessary to refer to the legal principle recognized by Community law to the effect that culpability is a pre-condition The Commission, which refers to the for a criminal conviction and that an judgment of 4 October 1979 in Case unavoidable mistake excludes culpability. 141/78 French Republic ν United The latter view is confirmed in the main Kingdom [1979] ECR 2923, the proceedings since Messrs Mehlich and judgment of 10 July 1980 in Case 32/79 Gewiese had acted under the licences Commission ν United Kingdom [1980] issued to them by the Federal authorities ECR 2327 and the judgment of 5 May on 29 June 1981 on the basis of the 1981 in Case 804/79 cited above, Commission proposal of 12 June 1981. considers that the obligation of prior

The Commission, which refers to This interpretation is confirmed by the paragraph 46 of the judgment of 10 July wording of the "interim measures" 1980 in Case 32/79, cited above, decisions adopted by the Council on nevertheless wishes to make the point 19 December 1978 and subsequently. that a Member State which fails to give They provide, with regard to technical adequate advance notice of a re- measures for the conservation and sur­ enactment takes the responsibility if it veillance of fishery resources, that turns out that the new provision involves Member States are to apply the same some substantive amendment to existing measures as they applied on 3 November measures. In such a case the proper 1976, as well as other measures (emphasis procedure would not have been followed supplied by the Commission) which were and the new measure could not have adopted in accordance with the proc­ been validly brought into force. edures and the criteria of Annex VI to the Hague Resolution. According to the Commission, a clear distinction is made The Commission proposes that the Court in those decisions between existing reply to the question submitted by the measures and new measures; only the High Court of Justiciary as follows: latter fall within the prior consultation procedure. "Where after 1 July 1979 a Member State brings into force without prior consultation of the Commission a This interpretation is also confirmed by re-enactment, without substantive the constant practice of the Member amendment, of a national conservation States and of the Commission in the measure which was itself made and consultations on national conservation maintained in conformity with Com­ measures, whereby, on the one hand, the munity law, the measure so re-enacted Member States do not seek the approval remains made and maintained in of the Commission for provisions which conformity with Community law."

Decision

1 By o r d e r of 1 F e b r u a r y 1983 the H i g h C o u r t of Justiciary Scotland, submitted a question for a preliminary ruling u n d e r Article 177 of the E E C T r e a t y o n the interpretation of the provisions of C o m m u n i t y law relating t o the conservation of fishery resources.

2 T h e question is submitted in the context of proceedings instituted against t w o G e r m a n fishermen by the U n i t e d K i n g d o m authorities following the confiscation o n 10 July 1981 of their herring catches t a k e n , in c o n t r a v e n t i o n

GEWIESE AND MEHLICH ν SCOTT MACKENZIE

of the relevant United Kingdom legislation, in the area to the west of Scotland designated Division VI(a) by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as "ICES Division VI(a)").

5 It must be borne in mind that by virtue of Article 102 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties, the power to adopt measures for the protection of the biological resources of the sea has since 1 January 1979 been vested exclusively in the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission.

JUDGMENT OF 14. 2. 1984 — CASE 24/83

6 The legal context of the main proceedings has to be viewed in the light of the situation created by the fact that the Council did not lay down for 1981 the conservation measures provided for in Article 102 of the Act of Accession.

7 Although, as the Court made clear in its judgment of 5 May 1981 (Case 804/79 Commission v United Kingdom [1981] ECR 1045) the Member States may, in the case of inaction by the Council, bring into force interim conser- vation measures, they must, within the framework of the general task of supervision which Article 155 of the Treaty entrusts to the Commission, comply with the procedural and substantive conditions laid down by the Council in Annex VI to the Hague Resolution of 3 November 1976 which were confirmed by the Council Declaration of 31 January 1978.

8 It follows from the terms of the above-mentioned resolution and declaration, taken together, that as regards the procedural rules the Member State concerned must not bring national conservation measures into force until it has sought in good faith the approval of the Commission, which has to be consulted at all stages of the procedure.

9 It is not in dispute that the 1981 Order, which entered into force on 1 May 1981, was not notified to the Commission until 4 May 1981 and that therefore that condition was not satisfied.

15 It is important to note that in its statement of 27 March 1981, which was annexed to the minutes of its meeting, the Council noted that out of a desire to avoid serious disruptions the Member States would take for 1981 measures similar to those which they had taken in previous years.

16 By Regulation N o 754/80 of 26 March 1980 (Official Journal 1980, No L 84, p. 36), the Council fixed, for 1980, the total allowable catch for herring in ICES Division VI(a) at zero; on 18 November and 16 December 1980 the Commission proposed that the total allowable catch for herring in the same division for the year 1981 should be zero.

17 It was not until after the bringing into force of the 1981 measures that, on 12 June and 24 July 1981, the Commission amended its initial proposals for a total allowable catch of zero for that year — proposals which had not yet been adopted by the Council — and, on 27 July 1981, notified the Member States that its latest proposal for a total allowable catch of 65 000 tonnes of herring should be regarded as binding upon them (Official Journal 1981, C 224, p. 1).

18 According to the observations submitted to the Court by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, a situation may arise in which a national conservation measure previously adopted in compliance with Community law cannot be retained without substantive amendment — that is to say where

JUDGMENT OF 14. 2, 1984 — CASE 24/83

the trend revealed by the relevant available scientific data shows that the earlier protection measures are no longer strictly necessary for the management and conservation of the fishery resources. It is therefore for the national authorities to take the initiative by amending their rules, in conformity with the procedural and substantive conditions referred to above, in order to adapt them to the new situation.

in reply to the question referred to it by the High Court of Justiciary, Scotland, by order of 1 February 1983, hereby rules;

GEWIESE AND MEHLICH ν SCOTT MACKENZIE

No fresh consultation of the Commission is required in the case of the re-enactment, without substantive amendment, of a national measure for the conservation of fishery resources, which was previously adopted in conformity with the procedural and substantive conditions laid down by Community law.

Mertens de Wilmars Koopmans Bahlmann

Galmot Pescatore Mackenzie Stuart O'Keeffe Bosco Due Everling Kakouris

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 Februaiy 1984.