Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1999:109
Date: 1999-03-02
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;Implementing regulations
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Acts of the institutions — Regulations — Implementing regulation — Derogation from the 
basic regulation — Not permissible 
2. Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — Inspection of fishing vessels — Scheme 
of joint international inspection adopted by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation — 
Regulation No 494/97, amending Regulation No 2828/88 — Breach of an international agree­
ment binding upon the Community and of a basic regulation — No such breach 
(Council Regulations Nos 1956/88 and 3067/95; Commission Regulations Nos 2868/88 and 
494/97; Council Decision 95/586) 
I -1251 
SUMMARY — CASE C-179/97 
1. An implementing regulation adopted on 
the basis of an enabling provision in the 
basic regulation may not derogate from 
the provisions of that regulation, to which 
it is subordinate. 
2. In inserting in Regulation N o 2868/88 
establishing detailed rules for the applica­
tion of the Joint International Inspection 
Scheme adopted by the North-West 
Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) 
Article 4(a)(6) which provides that a 
N A F O inspector, whichever contracting 
party has appointed him, may attend the 
thorough inspection carried out at the port 
of diversion, referred to in point 10(ii) of 
the Annex to the basic regulation (No 
1956/88), without there being any need to 
obtain the consent of the authorities of the 
flag Member State, Regulation N o 494/97 
is not contrary to the agreement concluded 
between the European Community and 
Canada on fisheries in the context of the 
N A F O Convention, approved by Deci­
sion 95/586; nor is it contrary to Regula­
tion N o 1956/88, as amended by Regula­
tion N o 3067/95 implementing that Agree­
ment. 
Although point 10(ii) of the annex to Regu­
lation N o 1956/88 specifically concerns 
the situation where a vessel suspected of 
having infringed the N A F O rules under­
goes a thorough inspection in a port of 
diversion and provides for the attendance 
in such circumstances of an inspector from 
any other contracting party that wishes to 
participate without there being any need 
to obtain the consent of the flag State, 
point 10(iv) of that Annex and point 
II.9(e)(iv) of Annex I to the agreed minute 
of the above Agreement, which do require 
the flag State's consent, concern solely the 
specific situation where another con­
tracting party wishes to have an inspector 
board a vessel which has been ordered to 
make for a port of diversion for a thor­
ough inspection. The latter provisions refer 
to the inspection of the vessel in the port 
solely in order to emphasise that the 
inspector of a contracting party other than 
the flag State has the right, once aboard, to 
remain on the vessel until the inspection 
in the port has been completed. 
I - 1252