Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 27 February 1991

1 Original language: German.

2 OJ 1983 L 24, p. 14

3 Council Regulation of 7 October 1986 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1986 L 288, p. 1)

4 Articles 2 to 6 of Regulation No 171/83; Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 3094/86

5 Article 7 of Regulation No 171/83, Article 4 of Regulation No 3094/86

6 Title II of Regulation No 171/83, Article 2 of Regulation No 3094/86.

7 Title III of Regulation No 171/83, Title II of Regulation No 3094/86

8 Council Regulation of 29 June 1982 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of the Member States (OJ 1982 L 220, p. 1).

9 Council Regulation of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p 11

10 The wording is different but the difference is irrelevant in the present case Since 1 January 1987 (see Regulation No 4027/86 (OJ 1986 L 376, p. 4), the monitoring covers fishing activity and related activities and includes fishing vessels of third countries (see the second recital in the preamble to the amending regulation)

11 As justification for this it stated that confidentiality was indispensable in the interests of the effectiveness of the work of the Commission's monitoring officiais in the future and in order to protect the rights of third parties referred to in the reports.

12 A number of passages from the relevant document; are quoted in the language of the case since there is no official German translation.

13 Similarly, p 8 of the application at 3 3, p 10 at 5 1. p 12. the first sentence of the second paragraph

14 See p 4 of the application at 2 3 and p 12, second paragraph

15 See, for example, p. 9 of the application where objection is made that although the French authorities in their letter of 21 January 1987 had referred to systematic action which had been introduced (that is organization measures) nevertheless the inspections carried out by the Commission between February and September 1987 (monitoring the actual implementation) had revealed extensive defects conflicting with the promise in the said letter.

16 Underlined in the original; the Commission is referring here to the first recital in the preamble to and Article 1 of Regulation No 170/83.

17 P. 9, first paragraph, of the application.

18 See, for example, the judgment in Case 298/86 Commission v Belgium [1988] ECR 4343, paragraph 10.

19 Judgment in Case 31/69 Commission v Italy [1970] UCR 25, paragraph 13, judgment in Case 211/81 Commimon v Denmark [1982] FCR 4547, paragraph 9

20 Judgment in Case 211/81, ibid., paragraph 8, judgment in Case 229/87 Commnsion v Hellenic Republic [1988] ECR 6347, paragraph 12

21 Judgment in Case 211/81, ibid, paragraph 14, judgment in Case 298/86, ibid, paragraph 10

22 My emphasis.

23 My emphasis.

24 See Annexes V and VI to Regulation No 171/83, Annexes II and III to Regulation No 3094/86

25 See Annexes I to IV to Regulation No 171/83; Annex I to Regulation No 3094/86

26 See the (udgment in Case 39/72 Commission v Italy [1973] ECR 101, paragraphs 9 and II, the judgmcnt in Case 103/84 Commimon v Italy [1986] ECR 1759, paragraphs 8 and 9, and the judgments in Case 54/84 Commission v Italy [ 1987] ECR 2717. paragraph 6

27 Sec judgments cited in footnote 24

28 See paragraph 24.

29 See page 2 of the reply of 21 January 1987 where it is stated: (Le gouvernement français) a pris sur lui de donner des consignes à ses services afin d'éviter tout risque de désordre. On the same page, there is mention of systematic action in 1986 which is alleged to have brought about certain improvements; the said improvements are illustrated by a table of individual inspections which, in the opinion of the French authorities, shows the resulti of the action in a particular area.

30 On page 5 of the defence, the relevance (caractère significatif) of the Commission's findings are queried. On page 6 it is stated that an information and inspection campaign of which previous notice had been given was carried out; on that subject the French Government produces a letter in which the prefects of the relevant departments were referred to Community provisions on mesh size. It is then stated: Cette action, dont le gouvernement français considère qu'elle répond à l'obligation de moyen découlant de l'article 1er du règlement no 2241/87, n'a, d'ailleurs, pas été sans résultat, comme le montre le tableau figurant en annexe 3.

31 Second paragraph; see also the claim for relief in the application: contrôle garantissant le respect.

32 Under 1.1.

33 See, essentially, the judgments in Cases 96/81 and 97/81 Commission v Netherlands [1982] ECR 1791 and 1819; most recently confirmed by the judgment in Case 244/89 Commissioni France [1991] ECR I-163, paragraph 35.

34 See page 3 of the letter where it is staled Je me rendrai prochainement a Bordeaux pour mettre en oeuvre un dispositif analogue a celui engage en Bretagne et dans les pays de la Loire sur la côte aquitaine et basque française

35 See p 5

36 Case 200/88 Commission v Hellenic Republic [1990] ECR I-4299, paragraph 13.

37 Except in respect of the minimum size of fish, which I have dealt with in the previous point.

38 See above, paragraph 24.

39 Sec above, paragraph 28

40 See page 6

41 Under 1987.IV-C

42 See p 19, under 1987-V11-C

43 Ibid (previous footnote)

44 1987-I-A; -II-B; -IX-B; -IX-C.