C-39/88

(i) of each product 3. The Commission's first complaint relates to the infringement of Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 of 29 December 1981 on the common organ- and ization of the market in fishery products (Official Journal 1981 L 379, p. 1), here- inafter referred to as 'the basic regulation', which states that: (ii) of the product category used for fixing the guide price, 1 — Regulation of 20 December 1983 on the notification of prices and fixing the list of representative wholesale 'Throughout the period during which the markets and ports for fishery products (OJ 1983 L 357, guide price is applicable, Member States p. 17). shall notify the Commission of the prices 2 — As amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) N o 3473/85 of 10 December 1985 amending, by reason of the recorded on representative wholesale accession of Spain and Portugal in particular, Regulation (EEC) No 3598/83 on the notification of prices and fixing the list of representative wholesale markets and ports for * Original language: French. fishery products (OJ 1985 L 333, p. 10).

I - 4275

OPINION OF MR MISCHO —CASE C-39/8S

weighted according to the 7. The defendant also explains that it is not quantities marketed; in a position to submit the information in question on a bi-monthly basis owing to the limited number of fisheries inspectors which it has at its disposal and the large number of fishing ports and landing points in Ireland. (b) total quantities landed and It states that it has also pointed out on marketed of the product and of the several occasions, during the negotiations category referred to in the second on the applicable regulations, that it would indent of (a); have very great difficulty in complying with that obligation.

5. In the case of Ireland, the notifications in question need relate only to the products listed in Annex I(A) to the basic regulation. According to the Commission, the alleged 9. This would suggest that bi-monthly noti- failure arises from the fact that the fication was not really necessary for the defendant provides it with the relevant smooth functioning of the market organ- information only once a year instead of ization. The fact remains, however, that twice a month. prior to the bringing of this action, Ireland submitted information only once a year, and that it would in any case have failed to meet the obligations laid down in the new regu- lation if that regulation had already been in 6. Ireland does not dispute this allegation, force. but contends that the information which it sends to the Commission is adequate when account is taken of the purpose of that information, which is to enable the Commission to forward proposals once a 10. It cannot in any event be disputed that year to the Council for fixing the guide the obligations arising under the old prices of the products in question. Commission regulation did apply to Ireland

I - 4276

COMMISSION v IRELAND

during the period to which the action 'practical difficulties which appear at the relates. Once it has been accepted that the stage when a Community measure is put provisions here relied on are valid and into effect cannot permit a Member State applicable, as is the case here, the Court is unilaterally to opt out of fulfilling its obli- obliged to take cognizance of their wording gations'. 4 and declare that they have not been complied with.

13. The Court has also recently given a 16. The Commission, however, had limited ruling to the same effect in its judgment in the scope of its complaint to the information Case C-48/89 Commission v Italian Republic concerning products frozen on board. As [1990] ECR 1-2425, in which the defendant, the defendant had stated that this concerned as in the present case, had pleaded diffi- a 'process [which] has not existed in Ireland culties in applying a measure which required or on board any Irish fishing vessel before it to supply certain information to the January 1988', the Commission abandoned Commission. That judgment confirms the this part of its application during the earlier case-law of the Court, according to hearing of orai argument. which: 4 — See in particular the judgments in Case 128/78 Commission 3 — Sec in particular the judgment in Case 254/83 Commission v United Kingdom [1979] ECR 419 and in Case 39/72 v Italian Republic [1984]ECR 3395. Commissionv Italian Republic [1973] ECR 101.

I - 4277

OPINION OF MR MISCHO —CASE C-39/88

Conclusion

17. I therefore propose that the Court should declare that by failing to provide at the times prescribed the information required under Article 11(1) of Regulation N o 3796/81 and Article 1 of Regulation No 3598/83, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions. Since the Commission is thus entitled to succeed under one head of its submissions, while it has abandoned the second, without such withdrawal being justified by the position taken by Ireland, I believe that the Court ought to order each party to pay its own costs.