4.

The full text of the condition is as follows: ‘the vessel must operate from the United Kingdom, Isle of Man or the Channel Islands: without prejudice to the generality of this requirement a vessel will be deemed to have been so operating if for each six month period in each calendar year (i. e. January to June or July to December) either (a) 50% by weight of the vessel's landings or trans-shipments of stocks to which this or any other licence issued relates, have been landed and sold in the United Kingdom, Isle of Man or Channel Islands or trans-shipped by way of sale within British Fishery Limits: or (b) other evidence is provided of the vessel's presence in a United Kingdom, Isle of Man or Channel Islands port on at least 4 occasions at intervals of at least 15 days.’ A short review of the relevant paragraphs in the Jaderow judgment is necessary in order to show why there is still disagreement between the Commission and the United Kingdom as to the lawfulness of this condition. The Court's starting point was the finding that the aim of the condition is to ensure that vessels that may fish against British quotas have a real economic link to the United Kingdom and it accordingly held that Community law as it now stands: ‘(1) does not preclude a Member State, in authorizing one of its vessels to fish against national quotas, from laying down conditions designed to ensure that the vessel has a real economic link with that State if that link concerns only the relations between that vessel's fishing operations and the populations dependent on fisheries and related industries; (2) does not preclude a Member State, in authorizing one of its vessels to fish against national quotas, from laying down the condition, in order to ensure that there is a real economic link as defined above, that the vessel is to operate from national ports, if that condition does not involve an obligation for the vessel to depart from a national port on all its fishing trips’ (emphasis added). The Court further held that Community law as it now stands: ‘... does not preclude a Member State, in authorizing one of its vessels to fish against national quotas, from taking the position that the fact of the vessel's operation from national ports may be proved by the Unding of a proportion of its catches, or its periodic presence, in national ports’ (emphasis added). It is apparent from that judgment that it would be incompatible with Community law if the requirement of landing catches at national ports in fact entailed an obligation for the vessel to land catches at those ports. On the other hand such a landing requirement is compatible with Community law if it is only one amongst several possible means of showing that fishing operations are carried out from national ports, that is to say that there exist alternative forms of evidence. One such alternative is the possibility of proving that vessels fished from national ports by means of evidence of their periodic presence in national ports. One precondition for such an evidentiary rule to be lawful is that it should not hinder normal fishing operations. On that basis the Court held that Community law as it now stands: ‘... does not preclude a Member State from accepting, as evidence of compliance with the condition that the vessel must operate from national ports, only the landing of a specified proportion of the vessel's catches or a specified periodic presence of the vessel in national ports, provided that the frequency with which the vessel is required to be present in those ports does not impose, directly or indirectly, an obligation to land the vessel's catches in national ports or hinder normal fishing operations ...’.