EU Court annuls Commission objection to Indian Ocean tuna FAD ban. A turtle trapped by a Spanish FAD off the coast of Madagascar. Its left flipper is nothing but a stump; the scales on its head have been ripped off; its body is covered in goose barnacles, an encrusting crustacean. Photo: Association BLOOM
Landmark Ruling Forces EU To Rethink Objection To Tuna Device Restrictions
The European Union’s General Court has delivered a decisive rebuke to the European Commission by annulling its August 2023 decision objecting to the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission’s (IOTC) landmark Resolution No 23/02 on Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs).
The ruling, handed down on 23 July 2025, forces the Commission to reconsider its opposition to a three-month annual ban on drifting FADs in the Indian Ocean, a measure aimed at protecting endangered marine species and fragile ecosystems.
FADs, artificial floating structures used extensively by commercial tuna vessels—predominantly French and Spanish fleets—are notorious for their indiscriminate impact. They not only aggregate target tuna species but also cause significant bycatch, including sharks, rays, turtles, and juvenile fish, while contributing to marine pollution through lost or abandoned devices damaging coral reefs and mangroves.
The disputed IOTC resolution, adopted in February 2023 after years of lobbying by coastal states in the region, imposed a 72-day annual moratorium on drifting FADs, coupled with a gradual reduction in the number allowed per vessel and a register to monitor their use. This represented an unprecedented attempt to rein in the ecological damage caused by the tens of thousands of FADs deployed each year.
However, the European Commission—acting as the EU’s representative within the IOTC—immediately objected to the resolution. The Commission argued the ban imposed disproportionate burdens on EU purse seine fleets and claimed the measures lacked sufficient scientific support. Its objection, joined by ten other states including France and Spain, effectively nullified the resolution under IOTC rules requiring consensus.
Environmental groups, led by the Paris-based NGO BLOOM and supported by the UK’s Blue Marine Foundation, challenged the Commission’s objection, filing a request for internal review that the Commission dismissed as inadmissible without substantive examination. BLOOM subsequently took legal action at the EU General Court, arguing the Commission’s objection violated EU environmental law, specifically the precautionary principle and obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
The Court’s judgment decisively overturned the Commission’s refusal to review its objection, finding that the objection itself constituted an administrative act potentially contravening environmental law. It stressed that by blocking the resolution, the Commission undermined binding conservation objectives enshrined in EU law, including the prudent and rational use of natural marine resources and the protection of marine biodiversity.
Crucially, the Court rejected the Commission’s technical argument that submitting an objection was merely a diplomatic act with no environmental consequences. Instead, it recognised that the objection’s effect—preventing the ban on drifting FADs from becoming binding—had likely negative repercussions on the Union’s environmental policy goals.
This ruling sets a legal precedent by confirming that objections by the Commission to international fisheries conservation measures may be subject to judicial scrutiny when they potentially conflict with environmental law. It puts the Commission on notice that it can no longer hide behind procedural technicalities to shield politically motivated decisions favoring industrial fishing interests over environmental protection.
The decision has immediate implications. The Commission must now conduct a substantive review of its objection, and there is mounting pressure for the EU and member states to withdraw their objections, allowing the 2023 FAD ban to come into effect. Doing so would mark a tangible step forward in curbing the destructive impact of FADs, which have long devastated vulnerable species and marine habitats in the Indian Ocean.
The judgment also exposes the European Commission’s longstanding alignment with powerful fishing industry lobbies, particularly French and Spanish operators, which has frequently stymied meaningful environmental action in regional fisheries management bodies.
BLOOM has called on French President Emmanuel Macron and Ecology Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher to immediately withdraw France’s objection, warning that failure to do so would cement the EU’s reputation as an obstacle to ocean conservation. The NGO also urged the incoming European Commission leadership, including Fisheries Commissioner Kóstas Kadís, to break with past practices and prioritise environmental obligations over industry interests.
While the Commission may appeal the ruling to the European Court of Justice, the General Court’s decision marks a rare legal victory for ocean defenders and raises the prospect of restoring one of the most significant regional measures to protect the Indian Ocean’s fragile marine ecosystems.