1 The Court does not include an illustration of the proper application of Article 234. The opinion suggests, however, that Article 234 might be raised by one EC member against another. Thus, for example, had France complained to the Court of Justice that Ireland had allowed Burgoa to fish without a license in Ireland’s protected waters in violation of Regulation No. 341/78, it would appear from the Court’s ruling that Ireland could then have invoked Article 234 as a defense by contending that the Community regulation wrongfully impaired Ireland’s obligations to Spain as a result of the London Fisheries Convention. On the other hand, under the facts of the present case, Burgoa could not claim Article 234 protection but was forced to seek a defense in Irish domestic law.

2 Thus, in the instant case, the Court would have had to ascertain whether, under Irish law, Ireland maintained obligations to Spain as a result of the London Fisheries Convention of 1964 or whether those obligations had been nullified by the subsequent extension of the fishery zone to 200 miles.