Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1997:444
Date: 1997-09-30
Language of the case: English
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — System of fishing quotas — Allocation 
among the Member States of the volume of available catches — Allocation, by Regulation 
No 3362/94, of the quotas for cod and whiting in Area Vila (Irish Sea) — Legal basis — 
Regulation No 3760/92 — Assessment of the validity of Regulation No 3362/94 — Annex 
VII to the Hague Resolution — Not relevant 
(EC Treaty, Art. 43; Council Regulations No 3760/92 and No 3362/94; Council Resolution of 
3 November 1976, Annex VII) 
I -681 
SUMMARY — CASE C-4/96 
2. Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — System of fishing quotas — Allocation 
among the Member States of the volume of available catches —Judicial review — Limits — 
Allocation, by Regulation No 3362/94, of the quotas for cod and whiting in Area VIIa (Irish 
Sea) — No manifest error of assessment and bounds of discretion not exceeded — Principles of 
non-discrimination and proportionality — Infringement — None 
(EC Treaty, Arts 39 and 40(3); Council Regulations No 3760/92, Art. 8(4), and No 3362/94; 
Council Resolution of 3 November 1976, Annex VII) 
1. According to the terms of Annex VII to 
the Hague Resolution of 3 November 
1976, the Council, having regard to the 
economic relationships which characterise 
fishing activity in Ireland, declared its 
intention so to apply the provisions of 
the common fisheries policy as to secure 
the continued and progressive develop­
ment of the Irish fishing industry, while 
also agreeing to take account of the vital 
needs of the local communities in other 
regions. 
That annex, which expresses essentially 
the Council's political will to take 
account, in applying the future common 
fisheries policy, of the special needs of 
regions in which the populations are par­
ticularly dependent on fishing and related 
activities, cannot, however, produce legal 
effects capable of limiting the Council's 
legislative powers.' Thus, Regulation 
N o 3362/94 fixing, for certain fish stocks 
and groups of fish stocks, the total allow­
able catches for 1995 and certain condi­
tions under which they may be fished, 
and allocating to Ireland and the United 
Kingdom cod and whiting quotas in 
Area VIIa (Irish Sea) calculated on the 
basis of the preferences resulting from 
that annex, was not adopted pursuant to 
any binding commitments arising under 
that annex but on the basis of Article 8(4) 
of Regulation N o 3760/92 establishing a 
Community system for fisheries and 
aquaculture, which was validly adopted 
under Article 43 of the Treaty. 
It follows that the question whether the 
annex was properly adopted or not is 
irrelevant in assessing the validity of 
Regulation N o 3362/94, with the result 
that the validity of the allocation of those 
quotas is not dependent on whether the 
annex was properly adopted. 
2. When implementation by the Council of 
the common agricultural policy necessi­
tates the evaluation of a complex econ­
omic situation, its discretion is not lim­
ited solely to the nature and scope of the 
measures to be taken but also, to some 
extent, to the finding of basic facts inas­
much as, in particular, it is open to the 
Council to rely if necessary on general 
findings. That is precisely the case when, 
I - 6 8 2 
NIFPO AND NORTHERN IRELAND FISHERMEN'S FEDERATION v DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR 
NORTHERN IRELAND 
pursuant to Article 8(4) of Regulation 
No 3760/92 establishing a Community 
system for fisheries and aquaculture, the 
Council fixes total allowable catches and 
distributes fishing opportunities among 
Member States. In reviewing the exercise 
of such a power the Court must confine 
itself to examining whether there has 
been a manifest error or misuse of power 
or whether the authority in question has 
clearly exceeded the bounds of its discre­
tion. 
So far as concerns the allocation of cod 
and whiting quotas in Area Vila (Irish 
Sea) to Ireland and the United Kingdom 
by Regulation N o 3362/94 fixing, for cer­
tain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, 
the total allowable catches for 1995 and 
certain conditions under which they may 
be fished, the Council intended to give 
effect to the principle of relative stability 
of fishing activities for each Member State 
for each of the stocks concerned, as set 
out in Article 8(4) of Regulation 
No 3760/92, by balancing the interests 
represented by each Member State with 
particular regard to its traditional fishing 
activities and, where relevant, its local 
populations and industries dependent on 
fishing through application of the alloca­
tion keys set out in Regulation No 172/83 
and the operation of the preferences 
resulting from Annex VII to the Hague 
Resolution of 3 November 1976, which, 
for their part, seek to address the special 
needs of Ireland and the northern parts of 
the United Kingdom. Even if, in the con­
text of the quotas allocated to the United 
Kingdom, this balancing of interests leads 
to a reduction in catch opportunities for 
fishermen from Northern Ireland, the 
Council cannot on that ground be 
regarded as having committed a manifest 
error of assessment or as having mani­
festly exceeded the limits which the 
requirement of relative stability imposes 
on its discretion. 
Nor was the allocation of the quotas in 
question contrary to the principle of non­
discrimination set out in Article 40(3) of 
the Treaty or to the principle of propor­
tionality. By deciding, in light of the spe­
cial needs of the regions concerned, to 
allocate higher fishing quotas to Ireland 
than to the United Kingdom, the Council 
made an agricultural policy choice that 
lay within the scope of its discretion and 
which is consistent with the objectives of 
that common policy, as defined by Article 
39 of the Treaty, since that distinction was 
neither arbitrary nor manifestly inappro­
priate in relation to the objective of safe­
guarding the respective needs of the com­
munities dependent on fishing in Ireland 
and the northern parts of the United 
Kingdom. 
I -683