Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-140/00: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Fisheries — Conservation and management of fishery resources — Control measures for fishing activities)
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fishing controls

21.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

(Fifth Chamber)

of 24 October 2002

of 14 November 2002

in Case C-121/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien): Walter Hahn (1)

in Case C-140/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (1)

(Fisheries — Health policy — Directive 91/493/EEC and
Decision 94/356/EC — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —
Principle of proportionality — Limit values for the presence
of Listeria monocytogenes in smoked fish products)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Fisheries — Conservation and management of fishery
resources — Control measures for fishing activities)

(2002/C 323/11)

(2002/C 323/12)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: English)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-121/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien (Austria) for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that
court against Walter Hahn on the interpretation of Council
Directive 91/493/EEC laying down the health conditions for
the production and the placing on the market of fishery
products (OJ 1991 L 268, p. 15), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: A. La Pergola, acting as President of the Fifth
Chamber, P. Jann and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 2002 , in
which it has ruled:

Neither Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying
down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the
market of fishery products and Commission Decision 94/356/EC of
20 May 1994 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Council Directive 91/493/EEC as regards own health checks on
fishery products nor Articles 28 EC and 30 EC preclude the
application of national legislation laying down zero tolerance for the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes in fish products which have not
been chemically preserved.

( 1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.

In Case C-140/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: T. van Rijn and K. Fitch) v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by
M. Hoskins, barrister): Application for a declaration that, in
respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996, by:

— failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for the

utilisation of the quotas allocated to it,

— failing to carry out the inspections and other controls

required by the relevant Community regulations,

— failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when quotas

had been exhausted,

— failing to take administrative or penal action against the
masters of vessels infringing the regulations or against
any other person responsible for such infringement,

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
failed to comply with its obligations under Article 5(2) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
establishing a Community system for the conservation and
management of fishery resources (OJ 1983 L 24, p. 1) or, with
effect from 1 January 1993, Article 9(2) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a
Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (OJ 1992
L 389, p. 1), as well as Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control
measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1) or, with
effect from 1 January 1994, Article 2 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control

C 323/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.12.2002

system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993
L 261, p. 1), Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 or
Article 21 of Regulation No 2847/93, Article 1(2) of Regu-
lation No 2241/87, or Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93,
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola
(Rapporteur), P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 14 November 2002, in which it:

1. Declares that, in respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996,

by:

— failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for the
utilisation of the quotas allocated to it and to carry out
the inspections and other controls required by the relevant
Community regulations,

— failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when quotas

were exhausted,

— failing to take administrative or penal action against the
masters of vessels infringing those regulations or against
any other person responsible for such infringement,

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
failed to comply with its obligations under Article 5(2) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
establishing a Community system for the conservation and
management of fishery resources and, with effect from 1 January
1993, Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92
of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for
fisheries and aquaculture, as well as Article 1(1) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing
certain control measures for fishing activities and, with effect
from 1 January 1994, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control
system applicable to the common fisheries policy, Article 11(2)
of Regulation No 2241/87 and, with effect from 1 January
1994, Article 21 of Regulation No 2847/93, and Article 1(2)
of Regulation No 2241/87 and, with effect from 1 January
1994, Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 5 November 2002

in Case C-208/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesgerichtshof ): Überseering BV v Nordic
Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC) (1)

(Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Company formed in accordance
with the law of a Member State and having its registered
office there — Company exercising its freedom of establish-
ment in another Member State — Company deemed to have
transferred its actual centre of administration to the host
Member State under the law of that State — Non-recognition
by the host Member State of the company’s legal capacity
and its capacity to be a party to legal proceedings —
Restriction on freedom of establishment — Justification)

(2002/C 323/13)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-208/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Überseering BV and Nordic Construction Company Bauma-
nagement GmbH (NCC), on the interpretation of Articles 43
EC and 48 EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
President,
(Rapporteur) and
R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Princi-
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
5 November 2002, in which it has ruled:

J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet

1. Where a company formed in accordance with the law of a
Member State (‘A’) in which it has its registered office is
deemed, under the law of another Member State (‘B’), to have
moved its actual centre of administration to Member State B,
Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude Member State B from
denying the company legal capacity and, consequently, the
capacity to bring legal proceedings before its national courts for
the purpose of enforcing rights under a contract with a company
established in Member State B.