Case C-133/04: Actionbrought on 12 March 2004 by Kingdom of Spain againstCommission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EU waters, Spain, accession to the European Union, action for annulment (EU), authorised catch, catch quota, fishery resources, fishing area

C 106/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Action brought on 11 March 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

Action brought on 12 March 2004 by Kingdom of Spain
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-132/04)

(2004/C 106/65)

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 11
March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by L. Escobar Guerrero, member of the Commis-
sion's Legal Service, and by H. Kreppel,
judge at the Social
Court, assigned to the Legal Service as a national expert, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to transpose into its national legisla-
tion (or by doing so only partially) Article 2(1) and (2) and
Article 4 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC (1) of 12 June
to encourage
1989 on the introduction of measures
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work
as regards non-civilian personnel in public authorities, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive and under Articles 10 and 249 of the EC
Treaty;

2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(Case C-133/04)

(2004/C 106/66)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 12 March 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain,
represented by Enrique Braquehais Conesa, Abogado del
Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 (1) of 19
December 2003 fixing for 2004 the fishing opportunities
and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups
of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for
Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are
required, in so far as it does not allocate quotas to Spain in
relation to the fishing possibilities which were distributed
before the accession of that State in respect of the North
Sea;

Pleas in law and main arguments:

2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.

The period prescribed for
national law expired on 31 December 1992.

implementing the Directive in

The object of Directive 89/391/EEC, which is to encourage
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work,
favours a broad interpretation of its scope. Moreover,
it is
settled case-law of the Court of Justice that exceptions to the
scope of the Directive must be construed restrictively.

The inclusion in the scope of Directive 89/391/EEC of activities
carried out in normal conditions by the armed forces, the
police and other security forces provides the most favourable
position for workers and better
respects the principle of
proportionality.

(1) OJ 1989 L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Breach of the principle of non-discrimination:

Article 166 of the Act of Accession of Spain laid down, so far
as concerns access to waters and resources of the Spanish fleet,
a transitional period which ended upon the expiry of
the
period prescribed in Article 8(3) of Regulation (EEC) No
170/83, that is on 31 December 2002. However, the contested
regulation in practice maintains the restrictions on access in
respect of Spanish vessels to waters in the North Sea and in the
Baltic Sea by granting practically no quotas in those waters,
thus disregarding the fact that the transitional period has ended
and discriminating against Spanish fishermen by comparison
with those from other Member States.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/39

2. Infringement of the Act of Accession of Spain:

The restrictions laid down in that Act are being extended
beyond the time-limit laid down in Article 166 thereof by
means of the contested regulation and inasmuch as certain
quotas have not been allocated to Spanish vessels in the North
Sea and in the Baltic Sea.

170/83, that is on 31 December 2002. However, the contested
regulation in practice maintains the restrictions on access in
respect of Spanish vessels to waters in the North Sea and in the
Baltic Sea by granting practically no quotas in those waters,
thus disregarding the fact that the transitional period has ended
and discriminating against Spanish fishermen by comparison
with those from other Member States.

3. Breach of the principle of relative stability

2. Infringement of the Act of Accession of Spain:

The contested regulation radically changes the decisive factors
so far as concerns the percentage of catches since Spanish
vessels are not on an equal footing with vessels of the other
Member States in terms of the application of the principle of
relative stability.

The restrictions laid down in that Act are being extended
beyond the time-limit laid down in Article 166 thereof by
means of the contested regulation and inasmuch as certain
quotas have not been allocated to Spanish vessels in the North
Sea and in the Baltic Sea.

(1) OJ L 344 of 31.12.2003, p. 1.

3. Infringement of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No

2371/2002

Action brought on 12 March 2004 by Kingdom of Spain
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-134/04)

(2004/C 106/67)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 12 March 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain,
represented by Enrique Braquehais Conesa, Abogado del
Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 (1) of 19
December 2003 fixing for 2004 the fishing opportunities
and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups
of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for
Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are
required, in so far as it does not assign specific quotas to
the Spanish fleet in Community waters in the North Sea and
the Baltic Sea;

2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Breach of the principle of non-discrimination:

Article 166 of the Act of Accession of Spain laid down, so far
as concerns access to waters and resources of the Spanish fleet,
the
a transitional period which ended upon the expiry of
period prescribed in Article 8(3) of Regulation (EEC) No

The distribution of Community fishing opportunities among
in the case of
the Member States has not been carried out,
existing resources, in accordance with the principle of relative
stability and, in the case of new fishing opportunities, having
regard to the interests of the Member States,
in the present
case, those of the Kingdom of Spain.

(1) OJ L 344 of 31.12.2003, p. 1.

Action brought on 12 March 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-135/04)

(2004/C 106/68)

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 12
March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Michel Van Beek, Legal Adviser, and Gregorio
Valero Jordano, member of its Legal Service, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by allowing the practice of hunting migratory
birds (woodpigeon – Columba palumbus) in Guipúzcoa, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 7(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.