CELEX: 61988CJ0370
Language: en
Date: 1990-11-13 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 1990. # Procurator Fiscal v Andrew Marshall. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) - United Kingdom. # Discrimination - National measure for the conservation of fishery resources. # Case C-370/88.

Avis juridique important

|

61988J0370

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 1990.  -  Procurator Fiscal v Andrew Marshall.  -  Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justiciary (Ecosse) - United Kingdom.  -  Discrimination - National measure for the conservation of fishery resources.  -  Case C-370/88.  

European Court reports 1990 Page I-04071

SummaryPartiesGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Keywords

++++Fisheries - Conservation of fishery resources - National measures of a local nature authorized by Community rules - Prohibition on nationals' carrying a particular type of net on fishing vessels while they are sailing in waters adjacent to part of the national territory - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality inapplicable - Discrimination between producers or consumers - None - Interference with the fundamental right to the free exercise of a professional activity - None  ( EEC Treaty, Arts 7 and 40(3 ), second subparagraph; Council Regulation No 171/83, Art . 19(2 ) )  

Summary

A measure adopted by a Member State prohibiting its nationals from carrying a particular type of net on fishing vessels when they are sailing in waters adjacent to part of the coast of that State falls within the scope of Article 19(2 ) of Regulation No 171/83, which authorizes Member States to take strictly local measures, applying to national fishermen only, designed to limit catches by technical measures in addition to those adopted at Community level, provided that those measures are compatible with Community law .  Such a measure is not contrary to Article 7 of the Treaty, because that provision does not oblige the Member States to treat their own nationals equally . Moreover, even though it lays down restrictions which are specifically imposed on only some fishermen from the Member State in question, it is not contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 40(3 ) of the Treaty, which the Member States must comply with when they are adopting measures, concerning only their own nationals, pursuant to a Community regulation relating to the organization of the agricultural markets . Differential treatment cannot be described as arbitrary where it is justified by the conservation aims pursued .  Neither does such a measure interfere with the fundamental right to the free exercise of a professional activity, since it is justified by an objective of general interest and leaves the substance of the right to fish untouched .  

Parties

In Case C-370/88,  REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court of Justiciary ( Scotland ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between  Procurator Fiscal, Stranraer,  and  Andrew Marshall,  on the interpretation of Article 7 and Article 40(3 ) of the EEC Treaty and on the validity and interpretation of Article 19 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 171/83 of 25 January 1983 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources ( Official Journal 1983 L 24, p . 14 ).  THE COURT ( Fifth Chamber ),  composed of : J . C . Moitinho de Almeida, President of Chamber, Sir Gordon Slynn, R . Joliet, F . Grévisse and M . Zuleeg, Judges,  Advocate General : G . Tesauro  Registrar : H . A . Ruehl, Principal Administrator,  after considering the observations submitted on behalf of  the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by J . E . Collins, acting as Agent,  the Commission of the European Communities, by Peter Oliver, a member of its legal department, acting as Agent,  the Council of the European Communities, by Moyra Sims-Robertson, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent,  having regard to the Report for the Hearing,  after hearing oral argument from Mr Marshall, represented by J . Clarke, QC, the United Kingdom, the Council of the European Communities and the Commission of the European Communities at the hearing on 2 May 1990,  after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 6 June 1990,  gives the following  Judgment  

Grounds

1 By interlocutor dated 23 November 1988 which was received at the Court on 21 December 1988, the High Court of Justiciary referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a number of questions on the interpretation of Article 7 and Article 40(3 ) of the EEC Treaty and on the validity and interpretation of Article 19 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 171/83 of 25 January 1983 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources ( Official Journal 1983 L 24, p . 14 ).  2 The questions were raised in criminal proceedings brought against Mr Marshall, a British fisherman resident in Scotland, for unlawfully carrying in his fishing boat a monofilament gill net .  3 Article 19 of Council Regulation No 171/83, cited above, authorizes the Member States to lay down special measures with regard to the conservation of fishery resources .  4 Article 19 reads as follows :  "1 . In the case of strictly local stocks of interest to the fishermen of one Member State only, that Member State may take measures for the conservation and management of those stocks, provided that such measures are compatible with Community law and are in conformity with the common fisheries policy .  2 . Member States shall be authorized to lay down any strictly local conditions or detailed arrangements, applying to their national fishermen only, designed to limit the catches by technical measures in addition to those defined in the Community regulations, provided that such measures are compatible with Community law and are in conformity with the common fisheries policy .  3 . Before adopting any measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Member State concerned shall obtain the agreement of the Commission on the finding that the measures are in conformity with one or other of these paragraphs .  The Commission shall take a reasoned decision within three months of a request being submitted under the terms of the first subparagraph ."  5 On 14 January 1986, the Secretary of State for Scotland, having obtained the agreement of the Commission, made, pursuant to Article 19(2 ) of Regulation No 171/83, an order relating to the conservation of fishery resources, the Inshore Fishing ( Prohibition of Carriage of Monofilament Gill Nets ) ( Scotland ) Order 1986, SI 1986/60, ( hereinafter referred to as "the Order "). This Order, which applies only to British fishermen, prohibits them from carrying monofilament gill nets when they are sailing in waters adjacent to the coast of Scotland within a limit of six miles .  6 According to the United Kingdom, the Order aims at ensuring compliance with an earlier order prohibiting the use of such nets for salmon fishing in those waters .  7 On 20 September 1986 Mr Marshall' s boat was inspected in waters adjacent to the coast of Scotland . A net of the type prohibited by the Order was found on board .  8 In criminal proceedings against him in the Sheriff Court at Stranraer, Mr Marshall maintained, inter alia, that the Order was unlawful on the ground that it discriminated against British fishermen and, in particular, Scottish fishermen in comparison with other Community fishermen . In the first place, only British fishermen were prohibited from carrying the nets in question . Further, the discrimination affected more particularly British fishermen operating from Scottish ports . Such fishermen, unlike fishermen from other Member States and British fishermen not operating from Scottish ports, were not in a position to use monofilament gill nets where their use was authorized, since they were not permitted to carry them across the waters surrounding their home ports .  9 The Sheriff of Stranraer accepted Mr Marshall' s argument and dismissed the complaint . On appeal by the Procurator Fiscal the case came before the High Court of Justiciary .  10 In order to decide the case, the High Court of Judiciary referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling :  "( 1 ) Do the provisions of Article 7 or Article 40(3 ) of the EEC Treaty, or any other provision of Community law, prevent a Member State from adopting, with the prior valid approval of the Commission, a measure prohibiting the carriage on a fishing vessel registered in that Member State, while that vessel is within an area of the inshore waters of that Member State adjacent to a part of the coast thereof, of a fishing net of a specified type and construction, the use of which is otherwise not prohibited under Community legislation; and if so, in what circumstances?  ( 2 ) ( a ) Is Article 19 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 171/83 valid under Community law?  ( b ) If so, does a measure such as that described in Question 1 properly come within the scope of Article 19?"  11 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts of the case, the relevant Community legislation, the course of the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court .  The validity of Article 19 of Regulation No 171/83  12 Mr Marshall argued before the national court that Article 19 of Regulation No 171/83 was invalid in so far as it authorized Member States to take measures under the common fisheries policy conflicting with the fundamental principles of the Treaty . That argument prompted the national court to seek a ruling on the validity of that provision .  13 It is sufficient to observe in that regard that, according to the very terms of Article 19 of Regulation No 171/83, national conservation measures laid down pursuant to that provision must be compatible with Community law, which naturally includes the fundamental principles thereof .  14 Consequently, Article 19 of Regulation No 171/83 cannot be invalid on the ground that it authorizes the adoption of national measures conflicting with those principles .  15 In view of the foregoing, the reply to the national court should be that consideration of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 19 of Council Regulation No 171/83 .  The scope of Article 19(2 ) of Council Regulation No 171/83  16 The High Court of Justiciary also asks whether a national measure such as the Order comes within the scope of Article 19(2 ) of Council Regulation No 171/83 .  17 Such a measure is in the nature of the measures contemplated by Article 19 of Regulation No 171/83 . First, it is strictly local, since it applies only to some of the waters of the Member State which adopted it . Secondly, it applies to national fishermen only, since it is directed only at vessels registered in the Member State in question . Lastly, as it is confined to prohibiting the use of a particular type of net it is a technical measure .  18 In these circumstances, it should be stated in reply to the national court that a national measure such as the Order comes within the scope of Article 19(2 ) of Council Regulation No 171/83 .  The compatibility of a national measure such as the Order with the fundamental principles of the Treaty  19 Before the national court, Mr Marshall further argued that the Order was illegal for a number of reasons . In the first place, he claimed that it discriminated on grounds of nationality inasmuch as it placed British fishermen in a less advantageous position than other Community fishermen . Secondly, the discrimination affected more particularly Scottish fishermen operating from Scottish ports, since, unlike other British fishermen, they could not use the nets in question in waters where their use was authorized . Thirdly, the Order infringed the principle of proportionality, because it prohibited the carriage of the nets when it would have sufficed to prohibit their use . Lastly, it was argued that the Order constituted an interference with the right to the free exercise of a professional activity .  20 It was this line of argument which led the national court to ask whether Article 7 or Article 40(3 ) of the Treaty or the fundamental principles of Community law prevent a Member State from prohibiting the carriage of a particular type of net on all vessels registered in that State while the vessels are sailing in waters adjacent to its coast .  21 As far as Article 7 of the Treaty is concerned, it must be observed that that provision does not require the Member States to treat their own nationals equally . Consequently, discrimination between fishermen operating from Scottish ports and other British fishermen cannot constitute an infringement of Article 7 . Furthermore, the contested measure cannot be regarded as being contrary to Article 7 on the ground that it puts fishermen operating from Scottish ports in a less advantageous situation than fishermen from other Member States . Those categories of fishermen are not in comparable situations in view of the requirements of salmon conservation .  22 As far as Article 40(3 ) of the Treaty is concerned, it follows from the judgment in Case 207/86 Apesco v Commission [1988] ECR 2151, paragraph 23, that the Member States must comply with the principle of equality when they are adopting measures, concerning only their own nationals, pursuant to a Community regulation relating to the organization of the agricultural markets .  23 In that connection, it must be observed that the Order affects fishermen operating from Scottish ports more than other British fishermen : the former are precluded even from using monofilament gill nets where their use is authorized, since they may not carry them in the waters surrounding their home port .  24 However, such a difference in treatment is capable of constituting discrimination contrary to Article 40(3 ) of the Treaty only if it is arbitrary, that is to say, lacking sufficient justification and not based on objective criteria .  25 In that regard, it must be observed that salmon have to cross the area of the sea to which the Order relates in order to reach the rivers in which they spawn . It is therefore essential for the conservation of the species for a certain proportion of salmon to reach their spawning grounds .  26 This means that the use of monofilament gill nets must be prohibited in view of their particular efficiency . In order to ensure the effectiveness of that measure it was objectively justified to prohibit the carriage of that type of net in the area in question . Checks are particularly difficult to carry out in the area of the sea in question in view of the length of the coastline . It therefore does not appear arbitrary that the national authorities opted to prohibit the carriage of such nets rather than to step up checks in order to show that the nets have been used for illegal purposes . In the light of those considerations it also appears that the measure in question is not disproportionate to the objectives pursued .  27 Lastly, as regards the question of any interference with the right to exercise a professional activity, it must be borne in mind that, as the Court held in its judgment in Case 234/85 Keller [1986] ECR 2897, paragraph 8, limitations may be placed on the exercise of that right if they are justified by the objectives of general interest pursued by the Community, on condition that the substance of the right is left untouched .  28 In this case, the limitations placed on the right to fish are justified by the general interest, since they are intended to ensure the conservation of the species in question . Moreover, they do not affect the substance of the right to fish, since the freedom to fish is maintained provided that authorized nets are used .  29 Accordingly, it should be stated in reply to the national court that neither Article 7 or Article 40(3 ) of the Treaty nor the fundamental principles of Community law prevent a Member State from prohibiting the carriage of a particular type of net on all vessels registered in that State while they are in waters adjacent to its coast .  

Decision on costs

Costs  30 The costs incurred by the United Kingdom, the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable . Since these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court .  

Operative part

On those grounds,  THE COURT ( Fifth Chamber ),  in reply to the questions submitted to it by the High Court of Justiciary, by interlocutor of 23 November 1988, hereby rules :  ( 1 ) Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 19 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 171/83 .  ( 2 ) A national measure such as the order in question comes within the scope of Article 19(2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 171/83 .  ( 3 ) Neither Article 7 or Article 40(3 ) of the Treaty nor the fundamental principles of Community law prevent a Member State from prohibiting the carriage of a particular type of net on all vessels registered in that State while they are in waters adjacent to its coast .