C-46/86
ECLI:EU:C:1987:131
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61986CC0046
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE46/86
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ delivered on 12 March 1987 *
Mr President, plaice-catch quotas between the Members of the Court, Member States remains unchanged?
A —1. The reason why I am delivering this afternoon the opinion in the case heard (2) Does Regulation No 1/85 in its actual today is first that I believe the facts and the effect (the Netherlands quota is law have been clarified to such an extent exceeded whilst the Community quota that a decision is now possible and secondly is still not fully exhausted) contain in order to take account of the point made measures which restrict trade within the by the Netherlands Government to the Community and which are not effect that the observance of the quotas in necessary for the conservation of the the Netherlands is not guaranteed so long biological resources of the sea?' as the Court of Justice has not given its judgment in this case.
2. Since the Court which made the Thefirstquestion reference, the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Zwolle, has already itself answered most of the questions raised during the written procedure and the hearing, I consider it appropriate to deal with only those two 3. In accordance with the case-law of the questions which still give the Arrondisse Court 3the Arrondissementsrechtbank starts mentsrechtbank cause for doubt: from the principle that the placing of restrictions on catches by the fixing of quotas for certain stocks in order to conserve and replenish the fish stocks '(1) Is Council Regulation (EEC) No 1/85 concerned is necessary and permissible. It of 19 December 1984 fixing, for certain also considers that a distribution of the fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, permissible quotas among the Member provisional total allowable catches for States is necessary in order to give the indi 1985 and certain conditions under vidual Member States relative certainty over which they may be fished 1compatible a period of years as regards their expec with Article 4 (1) of Council Regu tations about their catch allocations. The lation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January only question as far as the Arrondissement 1983 establishing a Community system srechtbank is concerned is whether in view for the conservation and management of the change in plaice stocks in the period of fishery resources 2if in a changed 1983-85 an unchanged distribution of biological situation the distribution of quotas among the Member States continues to accord with the principle laid down in * Translated from the German. 1 — Official Journal 1985, L 1, p. 1. 3 — See the judgment of 14 July 1976 in Joined Cases 3, 4 and 2 — Official Journal 1983, L 24, p. 1. 6/76 Kramer and Others [1976] ECR 1279 et seq.
ROMKES v OFFICIER VAN JUSTITIE
Article 4 (1) of Regulation No 170/83 that fishing industry and increased the total fishing activities must remain relatively allowable catches in the expectation that the stable. quotas allocated to the other Member States would not be exhausted (which amounted to a de facto increase in the Netherlands quota) that step may have been rather 4. It must be pointed out first of all that it is unusual but at all events it cannot be by no means established that the biological regarded as constituting an infringement of situation of plaice stocks in the ICES 4 the principle of relative stability of fishing divisions concerned has in fact improved. activities prejudicial to Netherlands On the contrary, the ICES proposals rather fishermen. That conclusion is confirmed by suggest that the opposite conclusion should the rises in the Netherlands plaice quota be drawn since they proposed reductions in which rose constantly from 50 000 to 71 000 the total allowable catches, going from tonnes in the years 1982 to 1985. It must 181 000 tonnes in 1983 to 130 000 tonnes in also be pointed out that the Community 1985. However, the total allowable catch rules on the conservation and management fixed by the Community increased from of fishery resources are by no means 164 000 to 200 000 tonnes. inflexible but in particular enable the Member States to exchange all or part of their quotas, which has indeed been done.
5. However, as was submitted to the Court, that increase is not necessarily to be attributed to an improvement in the biol 8. Since it is therefore impossible to ogical situation of plaice stocks; economic establish any infringement of Article 4 (3) of considerations also play a part, especially Regulation No 170/83, there is no need to the intention within the Council to increase examine the further question regarding the the actual catches available to Netherlands extent to which the Council in enacting a fishermen without having to alter the quota- later regulation is bound by the terms of a distribution formula fixed in 1983. regulation earlier in time but on a par with the later regulation.
6. That formula was laid down by the Council after considering the Member The second question States' previous catches. No statement was made which would suggest that in fixing those limits the Council exceeded its discretion in the making of economic policy. 9. As regards the question whether the The same applies as regards the Council's suspension of plaice-fishing after the intention to retain that formula, which was Netherlands' plaice quota had been worked out during lengthy negotiations, for exhausted is to be regarded as a measure 10 years. restricting trade, reference must again be made to the aforesaid judgment in Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6/76. The principles laid down in that judgment as regards a catch 7. In so far as the Council still wished to restriction imposed by national law are accommodate the needs of the Netherlands applicable to catch restrictions imposed by Community law. Consequently, the 4 — International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. following statements of the Court apply:
OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE 46/86
10. 'Measures for the conservation of the of reducing the quantities that the States resources of the sea through fixing catch concerned are able to exchange between quotas and limiting the fishing method, themselves, cannot lead to these measures whilst restricting "production" in the short being classified among those prohibited by term, are aimed precisely at preventing such the Treaty, the decisive factor being that in "production" from being marked by a fall the long term these measures are necessary which would seriously jeopardize supplies to to ensure a steady, optimum yield from consumers. Therefore, the fact that such fishing.' 5 measures have the effect, for a short time,
B — Conclusion
11. On the basis of those considerations I propose that the question submitted to the Court by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Zwolle, should be answered as follows:
'Consideration of the question submitted to the Court by the Arrondissement srechtbank, Zwolle, has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation No 1/85 of 19 December 1984 with regard to the distri bution among the Member States of the total allowable catches for plaice in ICES divisions Ha and IV.'
5 — Kramer [1976) ECR 1279, paragraph 58 at p. 1313.