Brussels, 19/10/2011 (Agence Europe) - The General Court of the EU, on Wednesday 19 October, confirmed the decision requiring France to pay a fine of €57.77 million for too long tolerating the sale of undersized fish, especially hake (see EUROPE 9143 and 9142).
In 2005, a periodic penalty payment and a lump-sum fine were imposed on France for its failure to ensure compliance with rules on landing undersized fish. France agreed to pay the €20 million lump-sum fine but asked the Court to annul the periodic penalty payment. The Court rejected this application, arguing that “the Commission was competent to require the payment of the periodic fine imposed by the Court”. The full amount of the penalty payment was to be paid, the Court ruled.
In 2006, the Commission formed the view that France had ultimately fallen into line with European law and decided not to seek payment of a second penalty payment.
In a first ruling delivered in 1991, the Court of Justice ruled that, between 1984 and 1987, France had infringed Community law by not carrying out controls ensuring compliance with Community measures for fishery conservation. Believing that France had failed to fully comply with this judgment, the Commission brought a further action before the Court of Justice, which, in a second judgment in 2005, imposed pecuniary sanctions on France in the form of a periodic penalty payment and a lump-sum fine. This was the first time that a member state had had both forms of fine imposed upon it. The periodic penalty payment was fixed at €57,761,250 for every six month period following the date of the second judgment (12 July 2005) that France was still not in compliance with the first judgment of 11 June 1991. The lump-sum fine was fixed at €20 million.
The Court of Justice found that continuation of the infringement through offering undersized fish for sale (the catching of fish, notably hake, below the minimum size laid down in Community legislation) and the absence of effective action by the national authorities were such as to seriously prejudice the Community objectives of conserving and managing fishery resources. According to the Court, the French authorities neglected to carry out controls which were effective, proportionate and dissuasive, as required by the Community rules and were not carrying out a sufficient number of proceedings leading to penalties which were effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Following this second judgment, and in the context of the implementation of the 1991 judgment, the Commission sent France a decision, on 2 March 2006, requesting payment of the periodic fine. France asked the General Court to annul that decision or, alternatively, to reduce the amount in question. In its judgment of 19 October, the General Court rejects France's application.
The Court confirmed, firstly, that “the Commission was competent to require the payment of the periodic fine imposed by the Court”. Secondly, the Court rejected France's argument that its rights of defence had been violated. According to the General Court, the criteria to be used to determine whether the 1991 judgment had been fully implemented were determined by the Court of Justice in 2005. These criteria were further explained by the Commission in July 2005 in a meeting with the French authorities and also in a note of 28 September 2005. France, therefore, had had two opportunities to make known its views regarding these criteria. Consequently, if the Commission is required to cooperate with the member states so as to facilitate the application of EU law, this dialogue should, in principle, take place within the time limits fixed by the Court.
Thirdly and finally, the Court ruled that France had not shown that the Commission's decision was vitiated by an error of assessment or that the Commission had exceeded its powers. The General Court found that the infringements that led the Court to rule that France had failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law continued during the latter half of 2005 and the beginning of 2006. As a consequence, the Commission, when adopting its decision, did not determine that there was a new infringement but rather that there was an absence of any significant change to the infringements found by the Court in its two judgments. The fine was thus payable.
The General Court concluded that the full amount of the fine must be paid. Even on the assumption that the information provided by France could be considered to show an improvement in the situation, it nevertheless remained that, as of 1 March 2006, France had not fully implemented the Court's judgment of 11 June 1991. The Commission, bound by the 2005 judgment, was not able to reduce the amount and the efforts made by France were not such as to excuse the infringements, the Court stated. (LC/transl.rt)