Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2002:230
Date: 2002-04-18
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Full Court
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy
Concepts: Community rules
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Spain

Summary of the Judgment 
Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — System of fishing quotas — 
Principle of relative stability — Maintenance of a fixed percentage of the volume of the 
catches available for each of the stocks concerned — Authorisation to fish in an area for 
part of the total allowable catch fixed for that same species hi another area — Breach of 
the principle of relative stability 
(Council Regulations No 170/83, Art. 4(1), and No 3760/92, Art. 8(4)(ii)) 
I - 3439 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-61/96, C-132/97, C-45/98, C-27/99, C-81/00 AND C-22/01 
The principle of relative stability was laid 
down in Regula t ion No 1 7 0 / 8 3 , 
Article 4(1) of which provided that '[t]he 
volume of the catches available... shall be 
distributed between the Member States in a 
manner which assures each Member State 
relative stability of fishing activities for 
each of the stocks considered'. It was 
restated in Regulation No 3760/92, 
Article 8(4)(ii) of which provides that the 
Council shall distribute the fishing oppor­
tunities between Member States in such a 
way as to assure each Member State 
relative stability of fishing activities for 
each of the stocks concerned. Despite the 
differences in their wording, those two 
provisions cannot be interpreted differ­
ently, so that the 'fishing opportunities' 
which are to be distributed by the Council 
in compliance with the principle of relative 
stability must be understood as comprising 
the entire volume of the catches available. 
For the purposes of applying the principle 
of relative stability, the fishing opportun­
ities for each fish stock, defined as fish of a 
particular species located within a specified 
geographical area, must be assessed separ­
ately. It follows from Article 8(4)(ii) of 
Regulation No 3760/92 that relative sta­
bility of fishing activities must be assured to 
each Member State 'for each of the stocks 
concerned'. The stability of fishing activ­
ities is relative in the sense that it means the 
maintenance of a fixed percentage of the 
volume of the catches available for each of 
the stocks concerned — a volume which 
itself is likely to change — and not the 
guarantee of a fixed quantity of catches. 
The principle of relative stability could be 
circumvented if the actual fishing oppor­
tunities in a specific geographical area for 
which a total allowable catch (TAC) had 
been fixed could be increased by means of 
an authorisation to fish in that area for part 
of the TAC fixed for that same species for 
another area. The consequence of this 
would be that for the first area the dis­
tribution of fishing opportunities would be 
different from the distribution of the TAC 
fixed for that area. By authorising one 
Member State, the holder of an anchovy 
quota in ICES area IX, with a view to a 
subsequent transfer to another Member 
State, to fish for part of that quota in the 
waters of ICES area VIII, the anchovy 
fishing opportunities in ICES area VIII 
were increased to the detriment of a third 
Member State which, although it had 
actually been allocated a percentage of the 
anchovy TAC for ICES sub-area VIII, 
nevertheless did not obtain that percentage 
of the anchovy fishing opportunities in that 
area. 
(see paras 38-42) 
I - 3440