Case C‑540/16

‘Spika’ UAB and Others

v

Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Article 16(6) and Article 17 — Allocation of fishing opportunities — National legislation laying down a method based on objective and transparent criteria — Inequalities in the conditions of competition between operators in the sector — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 16 and 20 — Freedom to conduct a business — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 12 July 2018

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Jurisdiction of the Court—Limits—Request for interpretation relating to national legislation implementing EU law—Concept of implementing EU law—National measure laying down the method of allocation of fishing opportunities allocated to the Member States—Included

   (Art. 267 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1380/2013, Art. 16(6))

2. Fisheries—Conservation of the resources of the sea—System of fishing quotas—Allocation of fishing opportunities among the Member States—National legislation laying down a method based on objective and transparent criteria—Measure which may lead to inequalities in the conditions of competition between operators in the sector—Justification based on the need to prevent overexploitation of marine resources—Lawfulness—Unjustified restriction on the freedom to conduct a business and the right to equal treatment—None

   (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 16, 20 and 52(1); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1380/2013, Arts 2(1), 16(6) and 17)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 22-24)

2.  Article 16(6) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC, and Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which that Member State adopts a method of allocation of fishing opportunities which, while being based on a transparent and objective allocation criterion, may create a difference in treatment between operators having fishing vessels flying that Member State’s flag, provided that that method pursues one or more general interests recognised by the European Union and respects the principle of proportionality.

   Where national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursues the objectives of the common fisheries policy, as enshrined in Regulation No 1380/2013, it must be found to meet an objective of general interest recognised by the Union within the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter. As regards the suitability of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings for attaining the objectives of general interest which it pursues, it must be noted that, by means of the method of allocation of fishing opportunities which it lays down, that legislation makes it possible in particular to prevent marine biological resources from being over-exploited and their renewal from being hindered or stopped. In those circumstances, that legislation is capable of ensuring that fishing activities remain environmentally sustainable, as set out in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1380/2013.

   As regards the question whether or not that method entails restrictions on the freedoms enshrined in Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter that go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, it is apparent from the order for reference, first of all, that the historical share may be increased or decreased according to certain criteria, in particular environmental criteria or criteria which contribute to the development of the local economy. Next, a single historical operator cannot have more than 40% of the fishing opportunities allocated to the Republic of Lithuania in respect of a given species of fish. Finally, as noted in paragraph 38 of the present judgment, the share of fishing opportunities that has not been allocated as a priority to historical operators — a share that must represent at least 5% of the fishing opportunities granted to the Republic of Lithuania — is allocated by auction to other operators having a fishing vessel flying the Lithuanian flag. Accordingly, not only does the method of allocation of fishing opportunities at issue in the main proceedings not reserve fishing opportunities solely for historical operators on the basis of their respective historical shares but, in addition, it allows for those shares to be weighted on the basis of a number of objective factors.

   (see paras 44, 47, 48, 51-54, 56, operative part)