Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2002:199
Date: 2002-03-21
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: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actiotts for failure to fulfil obligations — Proof of such failure — Obligations with 
regard to managing fishing quotas — Member State's failure to fulfil obligations 
established by detailed data showing significant and repeated overfishing — Whether 
permissible 
(Art. 226 EC) 
I - 10379 
SUMMARY — CASE C-140/00 
2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Proof of such failure — Possibility of 
financial penalties pursuant to Article 228 EC — Nature of evidence not affected 
(Arts 226 EC and 228 EC) 
3. Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — Fishing quotas — Control 
measures — Obligations of Member States — Practical difficulties — Not relevant 
(Council Régulations No 2241/87, Art. 11(2), and No 2847/93, Art. 21) 
4. Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — Fishing quotas — Control 
measures — Obligation of Member States to impose penalties — Practical difficulties 
irrelevant 
(Council Regulations No 2241/87, Art. 1(2), and No 2847/93, Art. 31) 
1. The Commission proves that a 
Member State has not adopted appro­
priate detailed rules for monitoring 
utilisation of the fishing quotas allo­
cated to it and has failed to comply 
with its monitoring obligations, with­
out making any assumptions, when it is 
able, on the basis of the data gathered 
under the system put in place by the 
Member State, to point to cases of 
significant overfishing which have 
occurred repeatedly and can be 
ascribed to vessels with access to its 
quotas. 
(see paras 36, 39-40) 
2. The fact t h a t , p u r s u a n t to 
Article 228(2), a penalty payment 
may be imposed on a Member State 
for failure to comply with a judgment 
of the Court which establishes an 
infringement does not affect the nature 
of the evidence which the Commission 
must put forward to demonstrate an 
infringement. 
(see para. 41) 
3. Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 
establishing certain control measures 
for fishing activities requires Member 
States to adopt binding measures pro­
visionally to prohibit all fishing activity 
even before quotas are exhausted. 
Article 21 of Regulation No 2847/93 
establishing a control system applicable 
to the common fisheries policy lays 
down the same obligation with effect 
from 1 January 1994. Consequently, 
I - 10380 
COMMISSION v UNITED KINGDOM 
the Member States are required to 
adopt in time all the measures necess­
ary to prevent the relevant quotas being 
exceeded, in order to ensure com­
pliance with the quotas allocated to 
them for the purpose of conserving 
fishery resources. 
A Member State cannot rely on prac­
tical difficulties in order to justify its 
failure to adopt appropriate measures 
to prohibit fishing in time. On the 
contrary, it is required to overcome 
those difficulties by adopting such 
measures. It follows that a Member 
State may not cite landings in third 
countries or fluctuations in the quan­
tities landed in other Member States or 
in third countries. 
(see paras 46, 49-50) 
4. Where Community legislation relating 
to the conservation and control of 
fishery resources has been infringed, 
the competent authorities of a Member 
State are required to take penal or 
administrative action against the 
master of the vessel concerned or 
against any other person responsible, 
pursuant to Article 1(2) of Regulation 
No 2241/87 establishing certain con­
trol measures for fishing activities. 
Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93 
establishing a control system applicable 
to the common fisheries policy lays 
down the same obligation for Member 
States with effect from 1 January 1994, 
while specifying in paragraph 2 that 
those procedures are to be capable of 
effectively depriving those responsible 
of the economic benefit of the infringe­
ments or of producing results propor­
tionate to the seriousness of such 
infringements, effectively discouraging 
further offences of the same kind. If the 
competent authorities of a Member 
State were systematically to refrain 
from taking action against the persons 
responsible for such infringements, 
both the conservation and management 
of fishery resources and the uniform 
application of the common fisheries 
policy would be jeopardised. In that 
regard a Member State cannot plead 
provisions, practices or situations in its 
internal legal system to justify non­
compliance with obligations arising 
from rules of Community law. 
(see paras 56-57, 60) 
I-10381