5.

Accordingly, it remains to consider whether the prohibition of discrimination laid down by Community law, as stated in Article 7 of the EEC Treaty and in Article 2 (1) of Regulation No 101/76, was not infringed by the fact that the quotas were allocated on the basis ofprevious fishing patterns with the result that not all the fishing vessels of the Member States had equal access to the contested fishing grounds. However, since the Court of Justice has consistently held in its decisions that discrimination is to be regarded as prohibited only where there is an objective differentiation, unjustified by any specific consideration of fact, in the present case it is necessary merely to consider whether, in the light both of the objectives of a common fisheries policy and of the way in which it operates, apportionment of the total allowable catch in the manner provided for by the contested Order was in fact justified. In the opinion of the United Kingdom in particular, it was unnecessary in the present case to allocate catch-quotas amongst the individual Member States in order to prevent the total allowable catch from being exceeded. In its view, that aim could nave been achieved just as well if not more successfully either on the basis of equal access to fishing grounds for all fishing vessels up to the total allowable catch limit imposed or by means of a licensing system, likewise open to all the fishing vessels of the Member States, or by computation of the total number of fishing vessels involved. Against that argument, it is necessary in the first place to point out, as the Commission has done, that the fixing of a total allowable catch for a specific species of fish automatically raises several problems: first of all compliance with such a restriction on catches must be guaranteed by effective verification; secondly, the burden resulting from the restriction on catches must be shared equitably by the fishermen; thirdly, rational use of the total allowable catch must be guaranteed. However, as regards the effective verification of the total allowable catch — which is all the more necessary when, as in the present case, a fish stock is involved which also extends into the fishing zone of a non-member country — it cannot be disputed that the allocation of quotas amongst individual Member States constitutes an effective and accordingly in practice a justified means of control. It ensures, in particular, that the individual States of registration are also under an obligation to verify the catch-quotas allocated to them. If all the fishing vessels of the Member States were to enjoy equal access to fishing grounds, such verification by an individual Member State would on the other hand prove exceedingly difficult, not to say impossible, quite apart from the considerable administrative burden which a licensing system open to all would entail. The solution suggested by the United Kingdom would not, moreover, as the Danish and French Governments have also observed, ensure the attainment of the other objectives — equitable allocation of catches and rational exploitation of total quotas — which must be taken into account when a total allowable catch is allocated. If all fishermen were assured of wholly unrestricted access, it would lead to the more favourable treatment of those who are the first to fish in a given area and entail the risk that it might be necessary to close the fishing grounds prematurely, possibly to the detriment of fishermen who have hitherto earned their livelihood, either wholly or in part, from the fish stocks in question. Therefore, a licensing system open to all fishermen would, in those circumstances, be more harmful to those who have traditionally fished in lhe areas in question than to those who have not so far fished there and thus do not have to sustain any losses as a direct result of the restriction on catches. Finally, if quotas were allocated amongst those Member States whose fishermen have either in the past or in the current fishing season shown no interest in fishing in the area, or if the number of fishing vessels were taken into account, there would be a danger that the catch-quotas might not be used up which would be irreconcilable with a rational use of resources. The “harmonious... development of [the fishing] industry within the general economy” and the promotion of the “rational use of the biological resources of the sea” — objectives which must be pursued according to Article 1 of Regulation No 101/76 — could scarcely be attained by such measures. On the other hand, the total allowable catch available to the Community may be more effectively allocated on a reasonable basis amongst the Member States, in the light of the objectives referred to, by the application of the three criteria set out in the Council Declaration of 30 May 1980 on the common fisheries policy (Official Journal 1980, C 158, p. 2) as well as in the preamble to the Commission's proposal of 24 July 1980 for a Council regulation concerning the distribution among the Member States of the toul catch possibilities available to the Community in 1981 of stocks or groups of stocks occurring in the Community fishing zone (Official Journal 1981, C 224, p. 11). Those are the criteria — regard being had especially to traditional fishing patterns, to the special needs of regions where the local populations are particularly dependent upon fishing and the industries allied thereto, and to the loss of catch potential in the waters of non-member countries — which the Commission had already taken as a basis, in accordance with its express assurance, in the proposal which it laid before the Council concerning the allocation of the total allowable catch fixed for 1978 in respect of the shrimp stocks at issue.