1.Fishery conservation measures are part of the Community rules for the common organization of the agricultural markets within the meaning of Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 729/70 on the financing of the common agricultural policy since, according to Article 38 of the Treaty, agricultural products include fishery products . Therefore, refunds granted and intervention undertaken in breach of the Community conservation measures cannot in principle be financed out of the EAGGF ( see judgments of 15 December 1987 in Case 326/85 Netherlands v Commission (( 1987 )) ECR 5091, Case 332/85 Germany v Commission (( 1987 )) ECR 5163 and Case 237/86 Netherlands v Commission (( 1987 )) ECR 5251 ).
2 . In accordance with the general principles which underlie the Community' s institutional structure and govern the relations between the Community and the Member States, it is for the Member States, by virtue of Article 5 of the Treaty, to ensure that Community regulations, particularly those concerning the the common agricultural policy, are implemented within their territories ( see judgment of 21 September 1983 in Joined Cases 205 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor v Germany (( 1983 )) ECR 2633 ).
A Member State cannot escape from that obligation in the context of the common organization of the markets in fishery products and grant export refunds in respect of quantities caught in excess of the national quota on the ground that the Community rules contain no provision expressly providing for the possibility of refusing to pay export refunds in such cases when Article 2 of Regulation No 729/70 provides that only refunds granted in accordance with the Community rules may be financed by the EAGGF and, moreover, it is primarily its responsibility to bring fishing to an end if the national quota has been exhausted . If it encounters practical difficulties in setting up effective supervisory machinery, it is for the Member State to overcome them by adopting appropriate measures .
3.When the Commission refuses to charge certain expenditure to the EAGGF on the ground that it was incurred as a result of breaches of Community rules imputable to a Member State, it is for that Member State to show that the conditions for obtaining the financing refused by the Commission are filled ( see judgment of 24 March 1988 in Case 347/85 United Kingdom v Commission (( 1988 )) ECR 1749 ).
In Case 262/87
Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by A . Bos and G . M . Borchardt, Assistant Legal Advisers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands Embassy,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Legal Adviser, Robert C . Fischer, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, a member of its Legal Department, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
defendant,
APPLICATION for a declaration that Commission Decision 87/368/EEC of 19 June 1987 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section, expenditure for 1983 ( Official Journal L 195, p . 43 ) is partly void in regard to fishery products,
THE COURT
composed of : O . Due, President, T . Koopmans and F . Grévisse ( Presidents of Chambers ), G . F . Mancini, C . N . Kakouris, F . A . Schockweiler, J . C . Moitinho de Almeida, M . Díez de Velasco and M . Zuleeg, Judges,
( the grounds of the judgment are not reproduced )
hereby :
( 1 ) Dismisses the application;
( 2 ) Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs .
