European justice supports Brussels in its fisheries policy. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) validated on Thursday January 11 four fishing quotas set by the EU in 2020 despite scientific opinions recommending a halt to catches.
These quotas adopted by Member States for whiting, cod and plaice in the north-east Atlantic, which covered incidental catches, did not contravene the principles of sustainability of the Common Fisheries Policy, found the Court of Justice. justice of the EU against the opinion of the institution’s general advocate. Two separate procedures launched by the NGO ClientEarth, targeting the quotas set for 2022 beyond scientific opinions, are still underway before the CJEU, with hearings scheduled for 2024.
The Common Fisheries Policy adopted in 2013 provided that the catch rates adopted each year by the Twenty-Seven respect “by 2020 at the latest” the “maximum sustainable yield”, that is to say a level not putting endanger the balance of a given fish population. On the four disputed stocks, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the scientific body of reference, had recommended zero catch rates, but the States had overridden to take into account “bycatch” ( catches accidentally ending up in the nets).
Deeming these quotas “illegal”, the NGOs Friends of the Irish Environment and ClientEarth took legal action before the Irish courts, which turned to the CJEU. These quotas “were set, on the basis of the best scientific advice available, at a level which is not manifestly inappropriate to reconcile the objective of maintaining mixed fisheries in activity and that of restoring the good biological state of the stocks”, ruled the Court, referring to all of the CIEM evaluations.
“They were accompanied by corrective measures to limit bycatch,” she adds. The Luxembourg institution considered that States must have flexibility, as these accidental captures are difficult to avoid. In June 2023, Advocate General Tamara Capeta recommended “invalidating” the four disputed quotas, in the name of the binding nature of the 2020 deadline giving priority to the maintenance of fish stocks over “short-term economic interests”.
The final judgment “explicitly recalls that the 2020 deadline” for the obligation to end overfishing “must be respected”, but “it is disappointing that the Court has not confirmed that this obligation also applies to bycatch stocks,” observed Arthur Meeus, lawyer at ClientEarth. According to him, this does not, however, prejudge the outcome of the two ongoing procedures concerning the 2022 fishing limits, which “concern a larger number of stocks” and “put the emphasis on the entire ecosystem”.
