, BUT TO THE END OF THE SIXTH YEAR , THAT IS TO SAY , 31 DECEMBER 1978 .
5 THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT THE PERIOD REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 102 OF THE ACT CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS OF ACCESSION AND THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TREATIES EXPIRED ON 31 DECEMBER 1978 .
SECOND QUESTION ( COMPETENCE )
6 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE EVENTS WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE ECONOMISCHE POLITIERECHTER OCCURRED AT A TIME WHEN THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD UNDER ARTICLE 102 HAD NOT YET EXPIRED .
7 IT SHOULD ALSO BE BORNE IN MIND , HOWEVER , THAT AT THE TIME IN QUESTION THE COUNCIL HAD NOT IMPLEMENTED THE PROTECTIVE MEASURES ENVISAGED BY ARTICLE 102 . THIS LED TO UNCERTAINTY IN THE LAW , BUT IT DID NOT ACTUALLY ENTAIL A LEGAL VACUUM FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF COMMUNITY LAW . THE COURT HAS SHOWN IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 16 FEBRUARY 1978 ( CASE 61/77 COMMISSION V IRELAND ( 1978 ) ECR 417 , PARAGRAPHS 28 TO 37 AND 56 TO 68 ), WHAT THE LAW IS APPLICABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND HOW POWERS ARE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE MEMBER STATES . IT FOLLOWS THAT DURING THE YEAR 1978 THE MEMBER STATES HAD THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO ADOPT , WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE SPHERES OF JURISDICTION , ANY MEASURE COMPATIBLE WITHIN COMMUNITY LAW TO PROTECT THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE SEA AND , IN PARTICULAR , TO FIX FISHING QUOTAS FOR FISHING UNDERTAKINGS AND FISHERMEN SUBJECT TO THEIR CONTROL .
8 THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT MEASURES SUCH AS THOSE COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL REGULATIONS MENTIONED BY THE COURT MAKING THE REFERENCE WERE , AT THE TIME IN QUESTION , WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE MEMBER STATES .
THIRD QUESTION ( SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF COMMUNITY LAW )
9 ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTS ON THE FILE AND THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE PERSONS PROSECUTED IN THE NATIONAL COURT , THE PROTECTIVE MEASURES INTRODUCED IN THE NETHERLANDS FOR THE YEAR 1978 ARE CRITICIZED ON THE GROUND THAT THEY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NETHERLANDS FISHERMEN , BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS APPLIED BY OTHER MEMBER STATES IN THIS SPHERE ARE LESS STRICT . THE RESULT IS THAT FISHERMEN WHO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE NETHERLANDS AUTHORITIES CAN , EVEN IN WATERS WITHIN THE NETHERLANDS ' FISHING ZONE , MAKE MORE REWARDING CATCHES THAN THE NETHERLANDS FISHERMEN . IN THE OPINION OF THE ACCUSED , THEREFORE , THE NETHERLANDS REGULATIONS ARE CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE IN ARTICLE 7 OF THE EEC TREATY WHICH , THEY SAY , REQUIRES EQUAL TREATMENT BETWEEN THE NATIONALS OF ALL THE MEMBER STATES .
10 IN THIS CONNEXION IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT PROTECTIVE MEASURES AGREED ON WITHIN THE COMMUNITY , IN CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMISSION , ARE BASED ON RESPONSIBILITY SHARED BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES , IN THE SENSE THAT AT PRESENT EACH STATE REGULATES