WRITTEN QUESTION E-2326/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Community responsibility for conservation measures

In its proposals for a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which were adopted by the College of Commissioners on 28 May 2002, the Commission confers new powers on the coastal states to enable them to devise technical measures applicable in the waters under their jurisdiction which would require only the Commission's authorisation. Specifically, the coastal Member States would be allowed to adopt rules applicable within the knot 0 to 12-mile zone to all vessels and emergency measures applicable in other zones to all Community vessels.

In view of the fact that there is already a Community procedure enabling the Commission to adopt short-term emergency measures which are subsequently submitted for ratification by the Council, what reasons justify the creation of this new procedure?

Does the Commission believe the transfer of such powers to the coastal states to be in accordance with current Community law? If so, on the basis of what legal precepts?

Lastly, does the Commission not think that it should be the one to adopt such measures, in order to uphold the principle of neutrality?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

In the Honourable Member's written question, it is referred to Articles 8 and 9 of the Commission proposal. Article 8 provides for Member States emergency measures and Article 9 for Member States measures within the 12 nautical mile zone.

As Article 8 provides for short-term emergency measures, Article 9 provides for measures in the 12-mile zone which do not have this urgent feature. It is not a new procedure since this is at the present time stated in Article 46 of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms(1), indeed with a different formulation (it applies to local stocks) but similar in its effect.

Of course, there is a difference between this Article 46 and Article 9 as proposed, since Article 46 does not apply to vessels from other Member States. But the Commission is of the opinion that restrictive measures for conservation and management within this zone must not apply only to vessels from the coastal Member State concerned but also, in order to have a full effect, to the other vessels entitled to fish in this area.

It is stated that such measures must be non-discriminatory and, in this aim, procedural safeguards have been laid down in this Article. In particular, authorities of the other Member States concerned are associated to this procedure (see second indent of paragraphs 1 and 2). Member States and the relevant Regional Advisory Councils may submit their written comments to the Commission and the Commission shall confirm the measure or cancel it within 15 working days. Member States may refer the Commission's decision to the Council which by a qualified majority may take a different decision.

That provision must not be construed as a transfer of power. According to the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the EC Treaty, any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the EC Treaty. In that sense, the Commission is of the opinion that measures concerning conservation and management of resources within this area and having not yet been taken by the Community can be correctly and wisely addressed by the coastal Member State concerned.

As regards compliance of these measures with a principle of neutrality, the procedural safeguards above-mentioned allow it effectively.

(1) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.