Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1990-03-20
17 With regard to that argument it should be stated that in accordance with Article 10(2 ) of Regulation No 2057/82 the Member States are required to prohibit fishing provisionally from the date on which catches subject to quota made by vessels flying the flag of that Member State or registered in it are deemed to have exhausted the quota in question . It follows from that provision that the Member States are required to adopt in good time all the measures necessary to prevent the quotas at issue being exceeded, so as to ensure compliance with the quotas allocated to the Member States for the purpose of conserving fishery resources .
18 Consequently, the French Republic was required to adopt binding measures to prohibit all fishing activity provisionally even before the quotas were exhausted . The French authorities were therefore under an obligation to stop fishing for flatfish not later than 21 June 1985 and fishing for redfish not later than 13 July 1985 .
23 The French Republic' s argument cannot be accepted . It is settled case law ( see the judgment of 2 February 1989 in Case 262/87 Netherlands v Commission (( 1989 )) ECR 225 ) that a Member State cannot rely on practical difficulties in order to justify its failure to adopt appropriate supervisory measures . On the contrary, according to that case law it is for the Member States responsible for implementing Community regulations in the context of the common organization of the market in fishery products to overcome those difficulties by adopting appropriate measures .
28 With regard to the alleged uncertainty arising from the application of the conversion factor, it should be observed at once that the French authorities themselves used that factor to arrive at the catch figures transmitted to the Commission . Under those circumstances, the French Republic is not justified in contesting the reliability of that method of calculation at this stage . Moreover, even if there is a degree of uncertainty, it is limited and certainly cannot explain a quota infringement as great as that found to exist in this case in respect of flatfish .
29 With regard to the alleged dispute as to jurisdiction between the United Kingdom and the Faeroe Islands, it must again be pointed out that the French Republic simply transmitted to the Commission the figures relating to catches made by French vessels "in Faeroese waters" without raising any issue as to the delimitation of Community and Faeroese waters .
30 For the rest, it should be borne in mind that the preamble to the agreement on fisheries between the European Economic Community and the Government of Denmark and the Home Government of the Faeroe Islands provides that "it has been decided to establish around the Faeroe Islands, with effect from 1 January 1977, a fishery zone extending to 200 nautical miles off the coast within which the Faeroe Islands will exercise sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing the living resources thereof ". Under Article 2(b ) of that agreement, the Faeroese authorities are to determine annually "allotments for (( Community )) fishing vessels ... and the areas within which these allotments may be fished ". The list of allotments and fishing areas is transmitted to the Commission and serves as a basis for the division of quotas between the Member States . In the absence of any reservation in the fisheries agreement with regard to a jurisdictional dispute between the Faeroe Islands and the United Kingdom or any challenge to the areas indicated by the Faeroese authorities on the part of the Member State alleged to be concerned, the French Republic has not succeeded in casting doubt on the fact that all the catches relied on by the Commission in the context of these proceedings were taken in the area under the fisheries jurisdiction of the Faeroe Islands . Under those circumstances, the French Republic cannot rely on that argument to justify its failure to observe the quotas in this case .
37 The Court has consistently held ( see the judgment of 5 October 1989 in Case 290/87 Commission v Netherlands (( 1989 )) ECR 3083 ) that in proceedings brought under Article 169 of the Treaty the Commission is required to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled and may not rely on any presumption in order to show that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law .