, AND TO COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER CONSERVATION AND SUPERVISORY MEASURES SUCH AS THE PROHIBITION ON USING CERTAIN KINDS OF NET FOR FISHING FOR HAKE AND THE RESTRICTION OF BY-CATCHES .
18 FROM ALL OF THOSE PROVISIONS IT APPEARS THAT , AT THE TIME IN QUESTION , THE PROHIBITION PREVENTING SPANISH-REGISTERED VESSELS FROM FISHING WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION IN THE IRISH FISHERY LIMITS BORDERING THE WEST COAST OF THAT COUNTRY STEMMED FROM COMMUNITY LEGISLATION , IN PARTICULAR , REGULATION NO 1376/78 . SINCE THAT REGULATION DID NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY PENALTIES FOR CONTRAVENING THAT PROHIBITION THE IRISH AUTHORITIES WERE BOUND TO TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ENSURE ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND THIS THEY DID BY INSERTING SECTION 222 ( A ) IN THE FISHERIES CONSOLIDATION ACT .
19 THE ACCUSED IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMUNITY FISHERY MEASURES WERE ADOPTED UNILATERALLY AND WERE ACCORDINGLY UNLAWFUL . IT WAS SAID THAT , ON THE ONE HAND , THEY WERE IN BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF INTER NATIONAL LAW WHEREBY EACH STATE MUST RECOGNIZE TRADITIONAL FISHING RIGHTS IN ITS FISHERY WATERS . ON THE OTHER HAND THEY WERE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE LONDON CONVENTION WHICH , SINCE IT RECOGNIZED TRADITIONAL FISHING RIGHTS IN THE 6 TO 12-MILE ZONE , MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS MEANING THAT , AFTER THE EXTENSION OF FISHERY LIMITS , THE SAME REGIME EXTENDS UP TO 200 MILES .
20 IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE SOUNDNESS OF EITHER OF THOSE PROPOSITIONS AND TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS THE REGIME WHICH APPLIED IN THE FISHING ZONES BETWEEN 12 AND 200 MILES BEFORE THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE COMMUNITY RULES . ALTHOUGH IT IS FOR THE COURT TO RULE UPON THE VALIDITY OF ACTS OF INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE THAT VALIDITY HAS BEEN CALLED IN QUESTION , AN EXAMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS NOS 341/78 AND 1376/78 , WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE , DOES NOT REQUIRE AN APPRECIATION OF THE SITUATION WHICH EXISTED BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE COMMUNITY MEASURES FOR THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF FISHERY RESOURCES .
21 IN THIS REGARD IT MUST BE STRESSED AT THE OUTSET THAT ARTICLE 102 OF THE ACT OF ACCESSION REQUIRES THE COUNCIL , ACTING ON A PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION , TO DETERMINE CONDITIONS FOR FISHING WITH A VIEW TO ENSURING PROTECTION OF THE FISHING GROUNDS AND CONSERVATION OF THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE SEA . THE RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLES TO REGULATIONS NOS 341/78 AND 1376/78 INDICATE THAT CONTROL OF FISHING MAY BE ACHIEVED BY A SYSTEM OF FISHING LICENCES WHICH MAY BE WITHDRAWN IN THE EVENT OF IRREGULARITIES OR OF THE QUOTAS FIXED BECOMING EXHAUSTED . THAT IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE WHERE CONTROL OF THE CATCH CANNOT BE CARRIED OUT IN ADJACENT COASTAL PORTS SINCE FISHING VESSELS FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES NORMALLY RETURN TO THEIR PORTS OF ORIGIN IN ORDER TO LAND THEIR CATCHES .
22 RECOGNITION OF THE EVER MORE PRESSING NEED FOR CONSERVATION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE SEA , WHICH HAD