Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2000:488
Date: 2000-09-21
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Objective nature — Reason for the failure 
to fulfil obligations — Irrelevant 
(Art. 226 EC) 
I - 1025 
SUMMARY — CASE C-333/99 
2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Consideration by the Court of the merits — 
Fact that the alleged failure has no adverse consequences — Irrelevant 
(Art. 226 EC) 
3. Fisheries — Conservation of marine resources — System of fishing quotas — Obli­
gations of Member States regarding control — Provisional closure of fishing in 
sufficient time to ensure that quotas are not exceeded — Practical difficulties — 
Irrelevant 
(Council Regulation No 2241/87, Art. 11(2)) 
4. Fisheries — Conservation of marine resources — System of fishing quotas — Infrin­
gements to be penalised by the Member State of landing or transhipment — 
Determination by Member States of detailed rules for the utilisation of quotas 
(Council Regulations No 170/83, Art. 5(2), and No 2241/87, Art. 1) 
1. Article 226 EC enables the Commis­
sion to institute proceedings for failure 
to fulfil obligations each time it forms 
the view that a Member State has failed 
to fulfil an obligation under Commu­
nity law, without its being required to 
draw distinctions based on the nature 
or gravity of the infringement. 
The procedure laid down in Arti­
cle 226 EC is based on the objective 
finding that a Member State has failed 
to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty 
or secondary legislation. The fact that 
failure to fulfil obligations is the result 
of intention or negligence on the part 
of the Member State responsible, or of 
technical difficulties encountered by it, 
is irrelevant. 
(see paras 32-33, 36) 
2. As non-compliance with an obligation 
imposed by a rule of Community law 
in itself amounts to a failure to fulfil 
obligations, the fact that such non­
compliance did not have adverse effects 
is irrelevant. 
(see para. 37) 
3. A r t i c l e 11(2) of R e g u l a t i o n 
No 2241/87 establishing certain con­
trol measures for fishing activities 
requires Member States to adopt bind­
ing measures to prohibit on a provi­
sional basis all fishing activity even 
before quotas are exhausted. A Mem­
ber State cannot rely on practical 
difficulties in order to justify its failure 
to adopt appropriate supervisory mea­
sures. On the contrary, it is for the 
Member States responsible for imple­
menting Community regulations in the 
I - 1026 
COMMISSION V FRANCE 
fishery products sector to overcome 
those difficulties by adopting appropri­
ate measures. Article 11 of Regulation 
No 2241/87 is binding on Member 
States as a general rule which is indis­
pensable for guaranteeing the effective­
ness of any system for the conservation 
and management of fishery resources 
based on the apportionment, in the 
form of quotas allocated to the Mem­
ber States, of the volume of catches 
available for the Community. 
(see paras 39, 44-45) 
4. The exceeding of quotas, which the 
system for the control of fishing activ­
ities seeks to preclude, is caused, not by 
catching certain types of fish, but 
rather by landing or transhipping 
excess catches. The infringements of 
the quota system which must be pena­
lised by the Member State of landing or 
transhipment are consequently those 
which take place when catches are 
landed or transhipped in a port of that 
Member State or within the maritime 
waters under its sovereignty or juris­
diction. It is for the Member States to 
determine the detailed rules for utilisa­
tion of the quotas allocated to them, 
including the conditions governing 
their application. 
(see paras 52, 54) 
I - 1027