C-53/86
ECLI:EU:C:1987:223
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61986CC0053
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OFFICIER VAN JUSTITIE v ROMKES
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ delivered on 12 May 1987 *
Mr President, 3. On 1 November 1984 the Netherlands Members of the Court, State Secretary for Agriculture and Fisheries fixed by order, pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation No 171/83, the minimum size for plaice at 27 cm. This was pursuant to a request from the Netherlands fish- processing industry, which believed that a minimum size for plaice of 27 cm ensured better use of the national fishing quota. 1. The two questions submitted for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissement srechtbank (District Court), Zwolle, concern the problem whether a Member State has the power under Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 171/83 of 25 January 1983 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery 4. For the Arrondissementsrechtbank the resources 1 to adopt stricter provisions on first question which arises is whether Article minimum fish-sizes than is provided for in 20 of Regulation No 171/83 applies only to Article 11 (3) in conjunction with Annex 5 national provisions already in existence or to that regulation. also to new provisions. The French Government, the Netherlands Government and the Commission have proposed that the Court should choose the second alternative.
2. Since 1972 a Netherlands regulation laying down minimum sizes for plaice, haddock and whiting had provided that 5. Disregarding the fact that under various plaice measuring less than 27 cm could not legal provisions the minimum size for plaice be landed in the Netherlands. By a in the Netherlands had been 27 cm since judgment of 29 November 1984 the 1972, it must point out that only the Dutch Gerechtshof (Regional Court of Appeal), version of Article 20 (1) of the regulation in Arnhem, declared that regulation to be question could possibly give rise to the contrary to Community law and, so it is doubt expressed by the Arrondissement stated in the order for reference, took away srechtbank, but not the other language its legislative effect. That meant that from versions. But even in the Dutch version, it is that time the EEC size of 25 cm laid down clear from the fourth recital, and especially in Regulation No 171/83 applied in the when all three paragraphs of Article 20 are Netherlands as the minimum size for plaice. read together, that it must also cover future national measures, otherwise the Member * Translated from the German. States' permanent obligation to provide 1 — Official Journal 1983, L 24, p. 14. information would be pointless.
OPINION OF MR LENZ — CASE 53/86
6. By its second question the Arrondisse submitted by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, mentsrechtbank seeks to establish whether a whether the prohibition of discrimination measure whereby in at least one Member laid down in Article 7 of the EEC Treaty State different minimum sizes for some fish has been infringed. species apply than those applying in other Member States is in conformity with Community law and the common fisheries 11. Although the Community has in the policy. meantime introduced a common fisheries policy, it is still not possible, following the judgment of the Court of 3 July 1979 in 7. The governments which have submitted Joined Cases 185 to 204/78, 2even in the observations and the Commission suggest present legal situation, to accept that an that the Court should answer that question infringement of the prohibition of discrimi in the affirmative. nation has taken place.
8. It must be observed first of all that at least in the Skagerrak and Kattegat areas 12. As appears from the preamble and the Community law also imposes a minimum wording of Regulation No 171/83, its size of 27 cm for plaice, whereas in the provisions on technical measures for other areas covered by Regulation No conserving fishery resources are to be 171/83 Community law stipulates a regarded as minimum requirements which minimum size of only 25 cm for plaice. do not prevent the Member States from adopting more far-reaching measures. The technical measures for conserving fisheiy 9. A national measure whose purpose — resources therefore constitute only a partial and effect — is the better use of the total harmonization. The application of a quantity of catches and less wastage during national provision whose compatibility with processing undoubtedly contributes to the Community law is not in fact disputed, may protection of the biological resources of the not therefore be regarded as a breach of the sea and to a balanced exploitation of those principle of non-discrimination for the sole resources. It is therefore in accordance with reason that other Member States have the common fisheries policy, even if it is adopted different provisions. This is simply also intended to pursue other aims at the the result of the fact that the Member States same time. have the right to adopt different rules on this matter. At the hearing the Commission 10. Therefore, it only remains to examine, referred in this regard to the consequences with reference to the second question of a 'decentralized administration'.
13. In conclusion, I propose that the Court should answer the questions submitted to it by the Arrondissementsrechtbank , Zwolle, as follows:
2 —Judgmentof 3 July 1979 in Joined Cases 185 to 204/78 Firma), van Dam en Zonen and Others [1979] ECR 2345.
OFFICIER VAN JUSTITIE v ROMKES
'(1) Article 20 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 171/83 empowers a Member State to adopt, even after the entry into force of that regulation, technical measures for its fishing industry going beyond the minimum requirements of that regu lation.
(2) In the present state of Community law on fishing matters, a national measure which imposes stricter rules on the minimum sizes of certain species of fish on national fishermen in order to ensure better management and use of the fishing quotas is compatible with Community law. Such a measure accords with the common fisheries policy and does not constitute unlawful discrimi nation against the fishermen of the Member State concerned.'