Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union.
Date: 1996-03-19
25. Article 151(1), which forms part of the section relating to the Council, provides that Coreper is responsible for preparing the work of the Council and for carrying out the tasks assigned to it by the Council.
26. It is clear from those provisions that Coreper is not an institution of the Communities upon which the Treaty confers powers of its own but an auxiliary body of the Council, for which it carries out preparation and implementation work.
27. Coreper ' s function of carrying out the tasks assigned to it by the Council does not give it the power to take decisions which belongs, under the Treaty, to the Council.
29. With regard to the Council ' s argument that it did not adopt an act within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty, it must be borne in mind that an action for annulment must be available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects (see, in particular, Case 22/70  Commission  v  Council  [1971] ECR 263, the   " ERTA"  case, paragraph 42).
38. That finding is not affected by the statement, entered in the minutes of the Council meeting, to the effect that the substantive questions of competence and exercise of voting rights in matters coming under the future Agreement have not been settled.  Such a statement cannot be used for the purpose of determining the scope of the Council ' s decision where no reference is made to the content of that statement in the text of the decision in question and therefore has no legal significance (see Case C-292/89  The Queen  v  Immigration Appeal Tribunal,  ex parte  Antonissen  [1991] ECR I-745, paragraph 18).
42. It is settled law that it follows from the very duties and powers which Community law has established and assigned to the institutions of the Community on the internal level that the Community has authority to enter into international commitments for the conservation of the resources of the sea ( Kramer and Others , paragraph 33).
44. It has also been consistently held that, as regards the high seas, the Community has the same regulatory powers, in areas falling within its authority, as are recognized under international law to the State whose flag the vessel flies or in which it is registered (Case C-405/92  Mondiet  v  Islais  [1993] ECR I-6133, paragraph 12).
48. It must be remembered that where it is apparent that the subject-matter of an agreement or convention falls partly within the competence of the Community and partly within that of its Member States, it is essential to ensure close cooperation between the Member States and the Community institutions, both in the process of negotiation and conclusion and in the fulfilment of the commitments entered into.  That obligation to cooperate flows from the requirement of unity in the international representation of the Community (Ruling 1/78 [1978] ECR 2151, paragraphs 34 to 36, Opinion 2/91 [1993] ECR I-1061, paragraph 36, and Opinion 1/94 [1994] ECR I-5267, paragraph 108).  The Community institutions and the Member States must take all necessary steps to ensure the best possible cooperation in that regard (Opinion 2/91, paragraph 38).
49. In the present case, section 2.3 of the Arrangement between the Council and the Commission represents fulfilment of that duty of cooperation between the Community and its Member States within the FAO.  It is clear, moreover, from the terms of the Arrangement, that the two institutions intended to enter into a binding commitment towards each other.  Nor has the Council contested its effect at any moment in the proceedings.