124/80 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

In Case 124/80REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Economische Politierechter of the Arrondissementsrechbank, Rotterdam, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before it betweenTHE COURTcomposed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, P. Pescatore, Lord Mackenzie Stuart and T. Koopmans (Presidents of Chambers), A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco, A. Touffait, O. Due and U. Everling, Judges,Advocate General: G. ReischlRegistrar: A. Van Houttegives the following

Judgment

Facts

The judgment making the reference and the observations submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC may be summarized as follows.

I —Facts and procedure

On 20 October 1970, the Council of the European Communities adopted, pursuant in particular to Articles 42 and 43 of the EEC Treaty, Regulation (EEC) No 2141/70 laying down a common structural policy for the fishing industry (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 (III), p. 703) and Regulation (EEC) No 2142/70 on the common organization of the market in fishery products (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 (III), p. 707).Articles 98 to 103 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties, annexed to the Treaty of 22 January 1972, known as “the Accession Treaty,” contain provisions relating to fisheries. In particular, Article 102 provides that the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine, from the sixth yiar after accession at the latest, conditions for fishing with a view to ensuring protection of the fishing grounds and conservation of the biological resources of the sea.On 19 January 1976, the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 100/76 on the common organization of the market in fishery products (Official Journal L 20, p. 1) and Regulation (EEC) No 101/76 laying down a common structural policy for the fishing industry (Official Journal L 20, p. 19). The first of those regulations repeals Regulation (EEC) No 2142/70 and the second regulation repeals Regulation (EEC) No 2142/70 and the second regulation repeals Regulation (EEC) No 2141/70.Article 4 of Regulation No 101/76 provides that:“Where there is a risk of over-fishing of certain stocks in the maritime waters referred to in Article 2, of one or other Member State, the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty on a proposal from the Commission may adopt the necessary conservation measures.In particular, these measures may include restrictions relating to the catching of certain species, to areas, to fishing seasons, to methods of fishing and to fishing gear.”At its meeting on 30 October 1976 in The Hague the Council drew up and formally adopted on 3 November 1976 a resolution that the Member States would by concerted action extend as from 1 January 1977 their fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles off their North Sea and North Atlantic coasts.On the same occasion, the Council agreed (Annex VI to the Resolution) to a Commission declaration (hereinafter referred to as “The Hague Resolution”) worded as follows:“Pending the implementation of the Community measures at present in preparation relating to the conservation of resources, the Member States will not take any unilateral measures in respect of the conservation of resources.However, if no agreement is reached for 1977 within the international fisheries commissions and if subsequently no autonomous Community measures could be adopted immediately, the Member States could then adopt, as an interim measure and in a form which avoids discrimination, appropriate measures to ensure the protection of resources situated in the fishing zones off their coasts.Before adopting such measures, the Member State concerned will seek the approval of the Commission, which must be consulted at all stages of the procedures.Any such measures shall not prejudice the guidelines to be adopted for the implementation of Community provisions on the conservation of resources.”Although on 18 February 1977 the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 350/77 laying down certain interim measures for the conservation and management of fishery resources (Official Journal L 48, p. 28), it was necessary, as regards 1978, to use the power provided for in the second paragraph of Annex VI to The Hague Resolution whereby Member States are empowered to adopt appropriate measures where there are no autonomous Community measures.When, in December 1978, at the end of the transitional period provided for in Article 102 of the Act of Accession, it became clear to the Council that it would not manage to adopt in good time the conservation measures necessary for the year 1979, it decided as follows on 19 December 1978:1. “Member States shall conduct their fisheries in such a way that the catches of their vessels during the interim period shall take into account TACs [total allowable catches] submitted by the Commission to the Council in its communication of 23 November 1978 and the part of the TACs made available to third countries under agreements or arrangements made with them by the Community. The catches taken in the interim period will be offset against the allocations eventually decided upon by the Council for 1979.2. As regards technical measures for the conservation and surveillance of fishery resources, Member States shall apply the same measures as they applied on 3 November 1976, and other measures taken in accordance with the procedures and criteria of Annex VI of the Council resolution of 3 November 1976.”The system thus established was extended every three months by Council decisions adopted on 9 April 1979 (Official Journal L 93, p. 40), 25 June 1979 (Official Journal L 161, p. 46) and 29 October 1979 (Official Jounal L 277, p. 10).Pursuant to the Council decision of 19 December 1978 and subsequent decisions, the Netherlands Government adopted for 1979 interim measures on the limitation of catches of sea fish other than sole and plaice. Those measures were approved by the Commission on 25 July 1979 (Official Journal 1980, C 133, p. 4).In October 1979, one of Firma van Dam & Zonen's boats fished and landed cod in the Netherlands port of Stellendam in breach of the conservation measures adopted by the Netherlands Government.When criminal proceedings were brought before the Economische Politierechter [Magistrate dealing with commercial offences] of the Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Rotterdam, Firma van Dam & Zonen claimed that the measures adopted by the Netherlands Government were contrary to Community law. This prompted the court making the reference to refer to the Court of Justice, by a judgment of 4 March 1980, a request for a preliminary ruling worded as follows :“Are the measures adopted for 1979 by the Netherlands authorities, such as the regulations referred to in the summons, namely the dicision laying down for 1979 interim measures on the limitaiton of catches of sea fish other than sole and plaice [Beschikking voorlopige Regeling Vangstbeperking andere Zeevissoorten dan Tong en Schol 1979] (Nederlandse Staatscourant [Netherlands Official Journal] 1979-124) and the Decision [Beschikking] of 27 August 1979 under No J 3247 (Nederlandse Staatscourant No 167 of 28 August 1979) based on Community law?”The judgment making the reference was registered at the Court on 22 May 1980.Pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, observations were submitted by the Netherlands Government, by the Government of the United Kingdom, represented by its Agent, G. Dagtoglou, Treasury Solicitor's Department, by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by H.J. Bronkhorst, a member of the Commission's Legal Department, acting as Agent, by the French Government and by the accused in the main proceedings represented by W. L. Nouwen, of the Rotterdam Bar.After hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry. It nevertheless asked the parties to make at the hearing any observations which they considered to arise on the argument of the defendant in the main proceedings concerning an infringement of Council Regulation No 101/76 by the Council Decisions of December 1978 and April, June and October 1979.

II —Written observations submitted pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC

A —Observations submitted by the Netherlands Government

According to the Netherlands Government, which insists on the need to lay down a Community policy for the conservation of resources, the Member States may no longer adopt unilateral conservation measures without adversely affecting the common fisheries policy. However, in the absence of final agreement on Community conservation measures before 1 January 1979, it was necessary to establish a Community framework enabling the Member States to adopt conservation measures The Council therefore adopted the above-mentioned decisions of 1 January 1979, 9 April 1979, 25 June 1979 and 29 October 1979.Pursuant to those decisions, Member States not only have the power but are also under a duty to apply during 1979 the necessary limitations on catches. Those measures should however be compatible with Community law. This means in the view of the Netherlands Government that they cannot be discriminatory, must not be restricted to territorial waters and must as far as possible be an extension of what already exists at the Community level. For this purpose the measure adopted should follow the lines of the proposals submitted by the Commission to the Council in this respect. Finally, approval of the national measures by the Commission provides a gurantee that they are in accordance with Community law.In conclusion, the Netherlands Government suggests that the Court should reply to the question referred to it that in the given circumstances Member States not only had the power but were also under a duty to take the necessary conservation measures for the purpose of implementing the above-mentioned decisions of the Council in so far as those measures satisfy the conditions set out above.

B —Observations submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom

The Government of the United Kingdom first of all questions the exact scope of the question and considers that the question should be directed to ascertaining whether the measures taken are compatible with or in accordance with Community law. According to that Government, even after the end of the transitional period laid down in Article 102 of the Accession Treaty, the Member States continue to have power, in the absence of express provisions to the contrary, to adopt national conservation measures as long as such measures have not been adopted by the Council. This power exists even where there is no express authorization by the Community. These national measures must comply with the requirements laid down in the Treaty and such other texts as are relevant. This does not however involve the obligation for Member States to comply with the proposals which have been submitted by the Commission in this respect and which have remained merely proposals. Nor must they obtain the Commission's authorization for the implementation of those measures but must simply seek its approval.Moreover, even assuming that the Court does not share the views of the Government of the United Kingdom, it would however be necessary to consider that the national measures adopted in accordance with the authorizations granted by the above-mentioned Council decisions of December 1978 and April, June and October 1979 are in accordance with Community law.

C —Observations submitted by the Commission of the European Communities

In the Commission's view, the Member States no longer have power, in any case after the end of the transitional period, in other words after 31 December 1978, to adopt on their own authority fishery conservation measures.The Court, in the judgment of 10 July 1980 in Case 32/79, Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, [1980] ECR 2403, stated that if the Council has not adopted Community measures, the Member States must take them at national level in the interests of the Community and in accordance with both the substantive and the procedural rules arising under Community law. As far as procedure is concerned this means the duty to comply with the notification procedure laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 101/76 and the need to obtain the approval of the Commission. This duty of approval arises from Annex VI to the Hague Resolution and was recognized by Mr Advocate General Reischl in his opinion delivered prior to the judgment of 4 October 1979 in Case 141/78, France v United Kingdom [1979] ECR 2951.With regard to the substance of the case, the measures adopted by national authorities must, to be in acordance with Community law, take into account the general duty of cooperation laid down in Article 5 of the Treaty, provide for the free movement of goods laid down in Article 30 of the Treaty and avoid all discrimination in accordance with Article 7 of the Treaty and Article 2 of the above-mentioned Council Regulation (EEC) No 101/76. Finally, the measures must be based on proposals made to the Council by the Commission.The Commission concludes from an examination of the procedure followed and the contents of the measures adopted by the Netherlands Government that those measures are in accordance with Community law and suggests that the Court of Justice should give the following reply to the question referred to it:“The decision of 1979 laying down interim measures on the limitation of catches of sea fish other than sole and plaice (Nederlandse Staatscourant 1979/124) and the provisions extending and implementing that decision were adopted by the Netherlands Government taking into account the requirements of Community law.”

D —Observations submitted by the French Government

The French Government maintains that since the end of the transitional period all national powers to take measures for the conservation for the biological resources of the sea have come to an end and that from that date it is for the Council alone to adopt such measures.In its view, the system established by Annex VI to The Hague Resolution was, as the Court acknowledged by implication in its judgment of 16 February 1978 in Case 61/77, Commission of the European Communities v Ireland [1978] ECR 417, a provisional system intended to remain in force pending the adoption of Community measures which, under Article 102 of the Accession Treaty, should have been adopted by 31 December 1978 at the latest. The extension of the provisional arrangements beyond 31 December 1978 which would, in its view, be the result of acknowledging that the measures adopted by the Netherlands Government were valid, would make Article 102 purposeless since there would be no difference between the final system of conservation of resources and the transitional period created by that provision.In the absence of Community measures to take over from national measures when the transitional period expires, the rules of the Treaty which have become directly applicable provide the legal framework sought.Having thus emphasized the risks to which the maintenance of national powers with regard to the conservation of resources exposes the common fisheries policy and the interests of fishermen, the French Gouvernment concludes that“neither the Netherlands Government nor the Commission therefore have power to adopt or approve the conservation measures mentioned in the operative part of the order for reference; those measures, since they were not adopted by the Council, emanate from an authority which is not empowered to adopt them.”

E —Observations submitted by the accused in the main proceedings

Having recalled the facts of the case and the relevant case-law of the Court, the accused in the main proceedings claims that in paragraphs 19 and 26 of the decision in its judgment of 14 July 1976 in Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6/76, Kramer, [1976] ECR 1279, paragraph 14 of the decision in its judgment of 16 February 1978 in Case 88/77, Schonenberg [1978] ECR 473, and paragraph 9 of the decision in its judgment of 3 July 1979 in Joined Cases 185 and 204/78, van Dam [1979] ECR 2345, the Court emphasized the temporary nature of the transitional period laid down in Article 102. The Court, moreover, in a letter of 8 March 1979 addressed to the parties in the above-mentioned van Dam case, acknowledged the existence of a legal vacuum from 1 January 1979 in the field of the protection of biological resources. Since this finding was reached after the Council adopted the above-mentioned decision of 19 December 1978, it follows that in the opinion of the Court that vacuum exists in spite of that decision and in spite of its extension during 1979.Moreover, the decisions of December 1978 and April, June and October 1979 were adopted without complying with the procedure laid down in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 101/76, which provides, by reference to Article 43 (2) of the Treaty, for consultation of the Assembly. However, the procedure laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 101/76 is, as the Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee found (Working Document 80/78, EP 52.232/fin.), binding on the Council.Since the accused has therefore called in question the legality of the Council decisions pursuant to which the measures were adopted by the Netherlands Government, it suggets that the Court should reply to the question referred to it that the national rules at issue in the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling have no legal basis.

III —Oral procedure

At the sitting on 9 December 1980, the Netherlands Government, represented by A. Bos, acting as Agent, the French Government, represented by G. Guillaume, acting as Agent, the Government of the United Kingdom, represented by Lord Mackay of Clashfern Q.C., the Commission of the European Communities, represented by H. Bronkhorst, acting as Agent, and the Council of the European Communities, represented by B. Schloh, acting as Agent, presented oral argument.On that occasion the Council, supported by the Netherlands Government, maintained that its decisions of 19 December 1978, 9 April 1979, 25 June 1979 and 29 October 1979 were special measures which were not and could not have been based on Council Regulation No 101/76. That regulation, which was adopted at a time when the problems of the conservation of the biological resources of the sea had not attained their present dimensions, does not provide a satisfactory solution to the problems. It was accordingly necessary for the Council to enact ad hoc measures, which it did in the form of the decisions in question. Those decisions constitute a reminder to the Member States of their obligations under Article 5 of the EEC Treaty and contain both standstill measures and a restricted restoration of certain powers to the Member States.The Commission is of the view that the decisions of the Council must be considered not as conservation measures within the meaning of Council Regulation No 101/76 but as a formal reminder to the Member States of their obligations under Arcticle 5 of the EEC Treaty.The French Government considers that the decisions of the Council do not come within the scope of Council Regulation No 101/76 because they constitute mere standstill decisions under the terms of which the Member States are not authorized to enact new measures. They may not be interpreted as delegating the power of the Council to the Member States, which would be entirely unlawful.The Government of the United Kingdom for its part maintains that the Member States remain entitled to enact conservation measures even after the end of the transitional period provided for in Article 102 of the Act of Accession; that entitlement is only terminated when the Council lays down a common policy in the field. The decisions of the Council merely recognize that situation by requiring a certain surveillance of the exercise by the Member States of their power. In adopting those decisions the Council was not subject to the requirements of Article 4 of Council Regulation No 101/76.The Advocate General delivered his opinion at the sitting on 12 February 1981.

Decision

1By judgment of 4 March 1980, which was received at the Court on 22 May 1980, the Economische Politierechter [Magistrate dealing with commercial offences] of the Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court], Rotterdam referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question as to the interpretation of the Community provisions on the conservation of fishery resources for the year 1979 in order to ascertain whether measures enacted by the Netherlands Government for 1979 laying down limitations on catches of sea fish other than sole and plaice are compatible with Community law.

2At the beginning of 1979 the Council, to which the Commission, in pursuance of Article 102 of the Act of Accession, had proposed the adoption of a series of measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, failed to adopt the necessary provisions. In the circumstances the Council adopted interim measures which, applied for limited periods, were extended from time to time. These decisions, the wording of which is similar, are dated 19 December 1978 (not published), 9 April 1979, No 79/383 (Official Journal L 93, p. 40) and 25 June 1979, No 79/590 (Official Journal L 161, p. 46) and 29 October 1979, No 79/905 (Official Journal L 277, p. 10). The decision of 25 June 1979, which was applicable at the time of the events which gave rise to this case, is worded as follows :“COUNCIL DECISIONof 25 June 1979under the Treaties, concerning fishery activities in waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Member States, taken on a temporary basis pending the adoption of permanent Community measures(79/590/EEC)The Council intends to reach an agreement as early as possible in 1979 on Community measures for the conservation and management of fishery resources and related matters. Pending its decision in the matter and in view both of Article 102 of the Act of Accession and of the need to protect the biological resources and to maintain suitable relations with third countries in fisheries matters, the Council, on 19 December 1978 and 9 April 1979, adopted interim measures which were in force from 1 January to 31 March 1979 and from 1 April to 30 June 1979 respectively. Following on from these measures, the Council has decided on the following interim measures which will apply from 1 July 1979 until the Council has reached a definitive agreement or until 31 October 1979, whichever is the earlier.1. Member States shall conduct their fishery in such a way that the catches of their vessels during the interim period shall take into account TACs [total allowable catches] submitted by the Commission to the Council in their communications of 23 November 1978 and 16 February 1979 and the part of the TACs made available to third countries under agreements or arrangements made with them by the Community. The catches taken in the interim period will be offset against the allocations eventually decided upon by the Council for 1979.2. As regards technical measures for the conservation and surveillance of fishery resources, Member States shall apply the same measures as they applied on 3 November 1976, and other measures taken in accordance with the procedures and criteria of Annex VI to the Council resolution of 3 November 1976.”

3By a Decision [Beschikking] No J 4569 (Nederlandse Staatscourant [Netherlands Official Journal] 1978-253) of 28 December 1978, the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries laid down for 1979 interim measures on the limitation of catches of sea fish other than sole and plaice. These arrangements, which were extended by Decision No J 23451 of 27 June 1979 (Nederlandse Staatscourant, 1979-124), were amended by Decision No J 3247 of 27 August 1979 (Nederlandse Staatscourant, 1979-167) prohibiting the catching and unloading of cod in a specified zone. On 25 July 1979 the Commission found that the interim measures thereby laid down by the Netherlands authorities were in conformity with the Council Decisions of December 1978 and of April and June 1979 (Official Journal 1980 C 133, p. 4). On 22 November 1979 it found those measures were in conformity with the Council Decision of October 1979 (Official Journal C 133, p. 5).

4In October 1979 a boat belonging to the van Dam undertaking caught and unloaded cod in the port of Stellendam (Netherlands) in breach of the Decision of 27 August 1979. Van Dam, against which proceedings were instituted on that count before the Economische Politierechter, contended that the Netherlands measures were contrary to Community law. Before giving final judgment the Economische Politierechter decided to submit the following preliminary question to the Court of Justice:“Are the measures adopted for 1979 by the Netherlands authorities, such as the regulations referred to in the summons, namely the decision laying down for 1979 interim measures on the limitation of catches of sea fish other than sole and plaice [Beschikking voorlopige Regeling Vangstbeperking andere Zeevissoorten dan Tong en Schol 1979] (Nederlandse Staatscourant 1979-124) and the Decision [Beschikking] of 27 August 1979 under No J 3247 (Nederlandse Staatscourant No 167 of 28 August 1979) based on Community law?”

5According to the defendant in the main proceedings, at the end of the transitional period provided for in Article 102 of the Act of Accession there was a legal vacuum regarding the policy of conservation of the biological resources of the sea which the decisions of the Council did not make good. Furthermore, even if it is supposed that such was their objective they should have been adopted in the form prescribed in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 101/76 of 19 January 1976 laying down a common structural policy for the fishing industry (Official Journal L 20, p. 19). Since the procedure prescribed by that article was not followed the decisions of the Council are in any case void.

6The Council does not dispute that the decisions in question were not in the form provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 101/76 but claims that the regulation does not apply to those decisions. Those decisions are ad hoc measures taken by the Council in order to preserve, in a way not provided for by Regulation No 101/76, the biological resources of the sea; they crystallize certain situations and, at the same time, entail a “limited restoration of certain powers” to the Member States. Regulation No 101/76 is in fact obsolete and is no longer sufficient to meet problems the scope of which was not envisaged at the time when it was drafted.

7The French Government recalls that fisheries and more precisely the conservation of marine species are covered by the powers expressly transferred to the Community and stresses that on 31 December 1978 all national powers in the matter of conservation measures disappeared totally and irreversibly. A fundamental distinction must therefore be made, in accordance with the existing case-law of the Court, between the period which expired on 31 December 1978 and the ensuing period. Henceforth the power to adopt measures for the protection of the biological resources of the sea comes within the competence of the Community alone and more precisely of the Council. The Council cannot, without disregarding the provisions of Article 102 of the Act of Accession, restore to the Member States a power which they have definitively lost. Having regard to these legal facts, the decisions adopted by the Council must be understood as decisions crystallizing and fixing the conservation measures as they existed at the expiration of that transitional period and not as decisions delegating or transferring power to the Member States. The new measures adopted by the Netherlands Government thus emanate from an authority which is not empowered to adopt them.

8Although the Commission, the Netherlands Government and the Government of the United Kingdom place a different interpretation upon the decisions of the Council, they do not, however, doubt their lawfulness. With regard to the measures adopted by the Netherlands Government for the year 1979, they consider that, since they were formally approved by the Commission, they are in any case in conformity with the decisions of the Council and accordingly with Community law.

9It should be recalled in this connexion that the Court, in its judgment of 5 May 1981 (Commission v United Kingdom Case 804/79), whilst emphasizing that since the end of the transitional period provided for in Article 102 of the Act of Accession there has been a total transfer of powers to the Community, stated in its judgment that, it is not possible, on the basis of the failure of the Council to act in that matter to extend that idea to the point of making it entirely impossible for the Member States to amend the existing conservation measures in case of need owing to the development of the relevant biological and technological facts in this sphere. It added that such amendments would be of a limited scope only and could not involve a new conservation policy on the part of a Member State, since the power to lay down such a policy belongs henceforth to the Community institutions.

10With regard to the conditions under which national conservation measures may be taken, the Court took the following view:“As this is a field reserved to the powers of the Community, within which Member States may henceforth act only as trustees of the common interest, a Member State cannot therefore, in the absence of appropriate action on the part of the Council, bring into force any interim conservation measures which may be required by the situation except as part of a process of collaboration with the Commission and with due regard to the general task of supervision which Article 155, in conjunction, in this case, with the decision of 25 June 1979 and the parallel decisions, gives to the Commission.Thus, in a situation characterized by the inaction of the Council and by the maintenance, in principle, of the conservation measures in force at the expiration of the period laid down in Article 102 of the Act of Accession, the decision of 25 June 1979 and the parallel decisions, as well as the requirements inherent in the safeguard by the Community of the common interest and the integrity of its own powers imposed upon Member States not only an obligation to undertake detailed consultations with the Commission and to seek its approval in good faith, but also a duty not to lay down national conservation measures in spite of objections, reservations or conditions which might be formulated by the Commission.”

11Consideration in the light of the state of the law thus defined of the measures which have been referred to by the national court and which were taken in the circumstances described above, discloses no factor of such a kind as to cast doubts upon their conformity with Community law in view of the fact that they were formally approved by the Commission.

12The reply to the question submitted must accordingly be that national measures concerning the conservation of the biological resources of the sea such as those enacted by the Netherlands Government for the year 1979 concerning the limitation of catches of sea fish other than sole and plaice are in accordance with Community law to the extent to which, having been enacted by reason of a failure to act on the part of the Council, they have received, following consultation, the formal approval of the Commission.

Costs

13The costs incurred by the Government of the Netherlands, the Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom, the Commission and the Council, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As 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,in answer to the questions referred to it by the Economische Politierechter of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Rotterdam, by judgment of 4 March 1980, hereby rules: National measures concerning the conservation of the biological resources of the sea such as those enacted by the Netherlands Government for the year 1979 concerning the limitation of catches of sea fish other than sole and plaice are in accordance with Community law to the extent to which, having been enacted by reason of a failure to act on the part of the Council, they have received, following consultation, the formal approval of the Commission.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 June 1981.