(Reference for a preliminary ruling– Common fisheries policy– Regulation (EC) No1224/2009

23By those questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article33(2)(a) and Article34 of Regulation No1224/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the Single Control Authority of a Member State is required to notify to the Commission only the data logged by the masters of fishing vessels in the fishing logbook, pursuant to Articles14 and 15 of that regulation, or whether it may use a reasonable and scientifically valid method, such as the ‘time spent’ methodology, for the purpose of processing those data in order to ensure the accuracy of the catch figures it notifies to the Commission.

24It should be noted, as a preliminary point, that Article33(1) of Regulation No1224/2009 requires Member States to record and keep ‘all relevant data, in particular data referred to in Articles14, 21, 23, 28 and 62 [of that regulation], on fishing opportunities’. Under Article33(2)(a) of that regulation, each flag Member State is to notify the Commission by computer transmission of ‘the aggregated data’ relating to the quantities of each stock or group of stocks subject to TACs or quotas landed during the preceding month.

25Article34(a) of Regulation No1224/2009 requires every Member State to inform the Commission without delay when it establishes that the catches of a stock or group of stocks subject to a quota made by fishing vessels flying its flag are deemed to have exhausted 80% of that quota.

26As regards the establishment of logbooks by the masters of fishing vessels, Article14(1) of Regulation No1224/2009 requires masters of EU fishing vessels of 10metres’ length overall or more to keep a fishing logbook of their operations. In accordance with Article14(2), the fishing logbook must, inter alia, contain ‘information’ relating to the date and geographical area in which the catches were taken and the estimated quantities of each species. Article14(6) provides that that information is to be submitted to the flag Member State no later than 48hours after landing. Article14(9) of that regulation confers on the master responsibility for the accuracy of the ‘data’ recorded in the fishing logbook. Article15(1) and (2) of the regulation provides for electronic recording and daily transmission by the masters of EU fishing vessels of 12metres’ length overall or more of ‘the information referred to in Article14’ and sets deadlines for doing so.

27According to settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of EU law it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 10March 2021, Staatliches Amt für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt Mittleres Mecklenburg, C‑365/19, EU:C:2021:189, paragraph27 and the case-law cited).

28As regards, in the first place, the literal interpretation of the provisions referred to by the national court, it is apparent from the wording of Article33 of Regulation No1224/2009 that that provision does not relate exclusively to the data referred to in Articles14, 21, 23, 28 and 62 of that regulation, but covers a wider set of ‘all… data’ that may be considered relevant, as is shown by the expression ‘in particular’.

29Furthermore, it is clear from the use of the adjective ‘aggregated’ in Article33(2)(a) of Regulation No1224/2009 that the data which must be notified to the Commission are not limited to the raw data from the fishing logbook, but that those data must undergo some processing, in the form of aggregation.

30As regards the wording of Article34 of Regulation No1224/2009, it must be observed that it does not refer to the terms ‘data’ and ‘information’ referred to in other articles of that regulation in order to determine whether the 80% threshold for exhaustion of a quota is reached and does not lay down, for the Member States, any methodology for that purpose.

31It follows from those considerations that, first, the wording of Articles33 and 34 of that regulation does not support an interpretation which allows the interpretation of the terms ‘data’ or ‘information’ to be restricted solely to raw data recorded by the masters of fishing vessels in the fishing logbook.

32Second, it follows from the wording of those provisions and, in particular, from the wording of Article33(2)(a) of Regulation No1224/2009, that the Single Control Authority must not merely transmit automatically the data recorded by the masters of vessels in the fishing logbook but must process those data before submitting them to the Commission.

33As regards, in the second place, the context of Articles33 and 34 of Regulation No1224/2009, it must be stated at the outset that there is nothing in the wording of Articles14 and 15 of Regulation No1224/2009 to support the interpretation that the information referred to in Article14(2) of that regulation constitutes the only relevant ‘data’ for the purposes of Articles33 or 34 of that regulation.

34Furthermore, reference should also be made, in that context, to Articles5, 9 and 109 of Regulation No1224/2009.

35First of all, in accordance with Article5(5) of that regulation, the Single Control Authority designated by the Member State is responsible, inter alia, for coordinating the collection, treatment and certification of information relating to fishing activities, which it then notifies to the Commission. That information includes, inter alia, that referred to in Article33(2)(a) and Article34 of that regulation. Furthermore, according to Article9(1) of that regulation, Member States are to operate a satellite-based vessel monitoring system for effective monitoring of fishing activities of the fishing vessels flying their flag wherever those vessels may be and of fishing activities in the Member States’ waters.

36Next, in accordance with Article109(2) of Regulation No1224/2009, Member States are to ensure that all data recorded in accordance with that regulation are accurate and complete. To that end, subparagraph (a) of Article109(2) provides that Member States are to perform cross-checking, analyses and verifications of various items of information and data, inter alia, vessel monitoring system data and fishing activities data, in particular data in the fishing logbook, landing declarations, prior notifications, data from transport documents, sales notes, fishing licences and fishing authorisations.

37Lastly, Article109(5) of Regulation No1224/2009 provides that, if Member States identify inconsistencies in collected information and recorded data, they are to undertake the necessary investigations and, if there are reasons to suspect that an infringement has been committed, they are to take the necessary action.

38Thus, Article5(5) and Article109(2) and (5) of Regulation No1224/2009 seek to ensure that the Member States transmit accurate and complete information to the Commission, having recourse, where appropriate, to verification. It also follows from the wording of Article5 that the Single Control Authority designated by a Member State cannot simply automatically transmit the information which it collects to the Commission but must process and verify that information and, where appropriate, take the necessary action.

39Accordingly, the context of Articles33 and 34 of Regulation No1224/2009 supports the interpretation set out in paragraph32 of the present judgment. A Single Control Authority and, consequently, the Member State to which it belongs, would not be able to fulfil their obligations under that regulation if that authority was unable to check the reliability and accuracy of the data which it collects and confined itself to automatically transmitting the data recorded by masters of vessels in the fishing logbook.

40In the third place, as regards the objective pursued by Regulation No1224/2009, it should be recalled that that regulation forms part of the CFP, the objectives of which in terms of conservation are defined in Article2(1) of Regulation No1380/2013. According to that provision, the CFP seeks to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies.

41Member States can properly monitor the uptake of quotas and contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the CFP as set out in Article2 of Regulation No1380/2013 only if they can ensure that they have accurate and comprehensive information and data on fishing opportunities.

42Thus, it would be incompatible with the conservation objectives of the CFP to deny the Single Control Authority the power to use a reasonable and scientifically valid method to verify the data recorded in the fishing logbook in order to ensure the accuracy of the data concerning catches with a view to their transmission to the Commission, in accordance with Article33(2)(a) and Article34 of Regulation No1224/2009.

43As the Commission submits, the interpretation to the effect that the Single Control Authority must notify automatically, without exercising its expertise independently, where, as in the present case, it is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the data in the fishing logbook are inaccurate, would require that clear wording be used in either Regulation No1380/2013 or Regulation No1224/2009, which is not the case.

44Furthermore, that interpretation is consistent with the case-law which the Court has already developed in the legislative context preceding Regulation No1224/2009.

45As regards Article9(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No2241/87 of 23July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ1987 L207, p.1), under which the Member States were required to ensure that all landings of stocks or groups of stocks subject to TACs or quotas were recorded and to notify that information to the Commission, the Court has already held that that provision cannot be interpreted as merely laying down an obligation to provide the information which the Member States have gathered within the time limit set. On the contrary, the Member States must ensure that the information notified is correct. Consequently, the Court rejected the argument of the Member State in question that that provision merely imposes on Member States the obligation to notify the information set out in logbooks without verifying it (see, to that effect, judgment of 14November 2002, Commission v United Kingdom, C‑454/99, EU:C:2002:652, paragraphs47 and 48).

46In the light of all the foregoing, it must be held that Article33(2)(a) and Article34 of Regulation No1224/2009 must be interpreted to the effect that the Single Control Authority of a Member State is not required to notify to the Commission only the data recorded by the masters of fishing vessels in the fishing logbook, pursuant to Articles14 and 15 of that regulation, but may use a reasonable and scientifically valid method, such as the ‘time spent’ methodology, to process those data in order to ensure the accuracy of the catch figures that it notifies to the Commission.