Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 1985. - Criminal proceedings against I. Bout en Zonen BV. - References for a preliminary ruling: Arrondissementsrechtbank Middelburg - Netherlands. - Conservation of the resources of the sea. - Joined cases 86 and 87/84.



European Court reports 1985 Page 00941



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

FISHING - CONSERVATION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE SEA - TECHNICAL CONSERVATION MEASURES - TONNAGE OF FISHING VESSELS - METHOD OF CALCULATION - DETERMINED BY THE MEMBER STATES

( COUNCIL REGULATION NO 171/83 , ART . 14 ( 3 ))

Summary

IN THE PRESENT STATE OF COMMUNITY LAW , THE METHOD OF CALCULATING THE 70 GRT LAID DOWN AS A MAXIMUM TONNAGE IN ARTICLE 14 ( 3 ) OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 171/83 , LAYING DOWN CERTAIN TECHNICAL MEASURES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF FISHERY RESOURCES , MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE MEMBER STATES .

Parties

IN JOINED CASES 86 AND 87/84

REFERENCES TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE ECONOMISCHE POLITIERECHTER ( MAGISTRATE DEALING WITH COMMERCIAL OFFENCES ) AT THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK ( DISTRICT COURT ) MIDDELBURG FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

I . BOUT EN ZONEN BV ,

Subject of the case

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 171/83 OF 25 JANUARY 1983 LAYING DOWN CERTAIN TECHNICAL MEASURES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF FISHERY RESOURCES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1983 , L 24 , P . 14 ),

Grounds

1 BY TWO ORDERS DATED 9 MARCH 1984 , WHICH WERE RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 28 MARCH 1984 , THE ECONOMISCHE POLITIERECHTER ( MAGISTRATE DEALING WITH COMMERCIAL OFFENCES ) AT THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK ( DISTRICT COURT ) MIDDELBURG REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 171/83 OF 25 JANUARY 1983 LAYING DOWN CERTAIN TECHNICAL MEASURES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF FISHERY RESOURCES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1983 , L 24 , P.14 ).

2 THAT QUESTION WAS RAISED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT AGAINST I.BOUT EN ZONEN BV . THAT COMPANY IS CHARGED WITH HAVING INFRINGED ARTICLE 14 ( 3 ) OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 171/83 BY FISHING FOR SOLE OR PLAICE , OR BOTH , WITH BEAM TRAWLS WITHIN THE 12-MILE ZONE ALONG THE NETHERLANDS COAST FROM A VESSEL EXCEEDING 70 GRT ( GROSS REGISTERED TONNAGE ).

3 SINCE THE QUESTION RAISED IN THE TWO ORDERS FOR REFERENCE WAS IDENTICAL , THE COURT , BY ORDER OF 26 SEPTEMBER 1984 , JOINED THE CASES FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PROCEDURE AND THE JUDGMENT .

4 THE MAGISTRATE DEALING WITH COMMERCIAL OFFENCES AT THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK MIDDELBURG , BEFORE WHOM THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT , POINTS OUT THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM COUNCIL REGULATION NO 171/83 HOW OR UNDER WHICH PROVISIONS THE 70 GRT ARE TO BE CALCULATED . HE THEN STATES THAT THE METHOD OF MEASURING TONNAGE LAID DOWN BY THE OSLO CONVENTION OF 20 JUNE 1947 , INTRODUCING A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR MEASURING THE TONNAGE OF SHIPS , WHICH WAS APPLIED UNDER NETHERLANDS LEGISLATION AT THE MATERIAL TIME , MAY CAUSE THE GRT TONNAGE OF IDENTICAL FISHING VESSELS HAVING THE SAME BASIC DIMENSIONS TO VARY , NOT ON THE BASIS OF DISPLACEMENT , SPEED OR TRUE CAPACITY BUT ON THE BASIS OF THE BREADTH OF THE RIBS AND OF THE FLOOR PLATE . IT IS THEREFORE POSSIBLE FOR FISHING VESSELS OF THE SAME NATURE AND TYPE TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY . IN HIS VIEW , THIS MIGHT GIVE RISE TO DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT BETWEEN NETHERLANDS VESSELS , SOME BEING PERMITTED TO FISH IN THE COASTAL WATERS WHILST OTHER IDENTICAL VESSELS ARE NOT . THAT POSSIBILITY INDUCED HIM TO PUT THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT :

' HOW IS THE TONNAGE OF FISHING VESSELS TO BE DETERMINED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 171/83 OF 25 JANUARY 1983 LAYING DOWN CERTAIN TECHNICAL MEASURES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF FISHERY RESOURCES?

'

5 AS THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT RIGHTLY POINT OUT , THERE IS NO PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW DEFINING THE METHOD OF CALCULATING THE 70 GRT REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 14 ( 3 ) OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 171/83 . SINCE THERE ARE NO COMMUNITY RULES , THE MEMBER STATES MUST THEMSELVES DECIDE WHICH METHOD OF CALCULATION IS USED .

6 WITH REGARD TO THE FEARS OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF IDENTICAL VESSELS EXPRESSED BY THE COURT MAKING THE REFERENCE , IT NEED ONLY BE STATED THAT THAT POSSIBILITY DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE LIMIT OF 70 GRT LAID DOWN BY COUNCIL REGULATION NO 171/83 BUT SOLELY FROM THE METHOD OF CALCULATION PRESCRIBED BY NATIONAL LAW .

7 THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION RAISED BY THE ECONOMISCHE POLITIERECHTER AT THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK MIDDELBURG MUST THEREFORE BE THAT , IN THE PRESENT STATE OF COMMUNITY LAW , THE METHOD OF CALCULATING THE 70 GRT LAID DOWN AS A MAXIMUM TONNAGE IN ARTICLE 14 ( 3 ) OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 171/83 OF 25 JANUARY 1983 , LAYING DOWN CERTAIN TECHNICAL MEASURES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF FISHERY RESOURCES , MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE MEMBER STATES .

Decision on costs

COSTS

8 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT , WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . SINCE THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE , IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED , IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT , THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ),

IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE ECONOMISCHE POLITIERECHTER AT THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK MIDDELBURG BY TWO ORDERS DATED 9 MARCH 1984 , HEREBY RULES :

IN THE PRESENT STATE OF COMMUNITY LAW , THE METHOD OF CALCULATING THE 70 GRT LAID DOWN AS A MAXIMUM TONNAGE IN ARTICLE 14 ( 3 ) OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 171/83 OF 25 JANUARY 1983 , LAYING DOWN CERTAIN TECHNICAL MEASURES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF FISHERY RESOURCES , MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE MEMBER STATES .