Commission v Ireland (Fisheries policy) [2005] EUECJ C-38/05 (08 December 2005)

Judgment 1 By its application, the Commission of the European Communities seeks a declaration from the Court that, by failing to communicate to the Commission the data required under Articles 15(4) and 18(1) and the first and third indents of Article 19i of Council Regulation (EEC) 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2635/97 of 18 December 1997 (OJ 1997 L 356, p. 14) (-�Regulation No 2847/93-�), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions. Legal framework 2 Regulation No 2847/93 requires masters of Community fishing vessels to communicate certain information to the competent authorities of the Member States in the circumstances defined in Articles 8, 11, 12 and 17 thereof. That information concerns, inter alia, the types and quantities of fish landed. 3 Member States are in turn required to forward specific information to the Commission. The first subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 2847/93 thus provides: -�Before the 15th of each month, each Member State shall notify the Commission by computer transmission of the quantities of each stock or group of stocks subject to TACs [Total Allowable Catches] or quotas landed during the preceding month and shall provide it with any information received under Articles 11 and 12.-� 4 Article 15(4) of Regulation No 2847/93 provides: -�Each Member State shall notify the Commission, by computer transmission before the end of the first month of each calendar quarter, of the quantities of stocks other than those mentioned in paragraph 1 landed during the preceding quarter.-� 5 Article 18(1) of Regulation No 2847/93 is worded as follows: -�Each Member State shall notify the Commission, by computer transmission before the end of the first month of each calendar quarter, of the quantities caught in the fishing waters referred to in Article 17 and landed during the previous quarter and of all information received pursuant to Article 17(2).-� 6 Article 19i of Regulation No 2847/93 provides: -� -�Each Member State shall inform the Commission, by computerised means in accordance with the procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 109/94, of the aggregate data for the fishing effort deployed: -� in the previous month for each fishing area referred to in Article 19a(1) and in the Irish Box for demersal species, before the 15th of each month, -� -� -� in the previous quarter for each fishing area referred to in Article 19a for pelagic species, before the end of the first month of each calendar quarter-�. The pre-litigation procedure 7 As the Irish authorities failed to notify the Commission by computer transmission of the statistics for 1999 and 2000 required under Articles 15(4) and 18(1) and the first and third indents of Article 19i of Regulation No 2847/93, the Commission instituted the procedure under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations. 8 After placing Ireland on formal notice to submit its observations, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on 19 December 2003, in which it called on that Member State to adopt the measures necessary to meet its obligations under Regulation No 2847/93 within two months of notification of that opinion. 9 In its reply of 9 February 2004 to that reasoned opinion, Ireland stated that the new integrated system for the computer transmission of data would begin to be fully operational in January 2005. As it did not receive any subsequent information, the Commission decided to bring the present action. The action 10 The Commission criticises Ireland for its failure to notify it, by computer transmission and within the periods prescribed, of the data relating to, inter alia, the types and quantities of fish landed and the data for fishing effort during 1999 and 2000. 11 Ireland does not contest that head of complaint in its statement in defence. It does, however, submit that it was impossible for it to meet the obligation to communicate the required information because of deficiencies in the staffing resources necessary to perform the required data entry functions, data compilation and reporting, and problems with the information technology framework used to collate, store and transmit those data. 12 Ireland does, however, point out that, as the measures necessary to remedy staff deficiencies have already been put in place and the new high-performance integrated computer system for the transmission of reports should be fully operational by January 2005, it will very shortly be forwarding the relevant data to the Commission. 13 Ireland also invokes the fact that, during 2003, not one single Member State out of the 13 involved in the procedure for reporting computerised data succeeded in complying with all of the requirements laid down by Regulation No 2847/93. 14 It is first of all necessary to point out that, according to well-established case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, inter alia, Case C-333/01 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-�2623, paragraph 8, and Case C-57/05 Commission v France , not published in the ECR, paragraph 7). 15 It is common ground in the present case that, when the period of two months laid down in the reasoned opinion expired, Ireland had not yet forwarded to the Commission the information on certain data required under Articles 15(4) and 18(1) and the first and third indents of Article 19i of Regulation No 2847/93. 16 Next, it is necessary to point out that it also follows from well-established case-law that a Member State may not plead internal circumstances in order to justify a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits resulting from Community law (see Case C-�209/88 Commission v Italy [1990] ECR I-�4313, paragraph 11, and Case C-�406/03 Commission v Ireland , not published in the ECR, paragraph 14). It follows that the difficulties encountered by Ireland cannot be relied on as justification for the failure to fulfil obligations of which it is accused. 17 Finally, in regard to the argument raised by Ireland in its defence that 13 other Member States concerned by the transmission of those data failed to meet their obligations under Regulation No 2847/93, suffice it to recall that a Member State cannot rely on an alleged failure by another Member State to fulfil obligations in order to justify its own default (see Case C-�131/01 Commission v Italy [2003] ECR I-�1659, paragraph 46, and Case C-�27/03 Commission v Belgium , not published in the ECR, paragraph 41). 18 In those circumstances, the action brought by the Commission must be regarded as being well founded. 19 It must accordingly be held that, by failing to communicate the data required under Articles 15(4) and 18(1) and the first and third indents of Article 19i of Regulation No 2847/93, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions. Costs 20 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party-�s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against Ireland and the latter has been unsuccessful in its pleas, Ireland must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby: 1. Declares that, by failing to communicate the data required under Articles 15(4) and 18(1) and the first and third indents of Article 19i of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2635/97 of 18 December 1997, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; 2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII