The ECJ has ruled on the case of the setting of Irish fishing quotas in 2020, finding no manifest excess of discretion
European justice endorses fisheries management based on economic, social and environmental sustainability
In a recent judgment (Case C-330/22), the European Court of Justice has addressed concerns raised by Friends of the Irish Environment CLG regarding fishing quotas set by the Council for the year 2020.
The court’s ruling concludes that the Council did not manifestly exceed its discretion as defined by Regulation No 1380/2013 when establishing these quotas.
Background and Key Findings
Every year, the Council establishes fishing quotas for European Union waters, guided by scientific advice. Despite scientific recommendations for setting cod, whiting, and plaice quotas at zero to sustain stock reproduction, the Council, in its 2020 Regulation, decided to set quotas above zero for these species when caught as inevitable by-catch during operations targeting other stocks.
Friends of the Irish Environment contested these quotas in Ireland, questioning the Council’s 2020 Regulation’s validity. The main argument was that setting quotas above zero contradicted the EU’s common fisheries policy (CFP Basic Regulation).
The Court’s examination focused on the validity of Annex IA to Regulation 2020/123, which fixed the contested quotas for 2020 above the zero-catch level recommended by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2019. The Court found that since the quotas applied to stocks caught exclusively as by-catch, the Council had discretion in determining these fishing limits.
The Court acknowledged the Council’s broad discretion in assessing complex economic situations related to quotas and fishing opportunities. It determined that the disputed fishing limits were set at a level not manifestly inappropriate to balance the objective of maintaining mixed fisheries with the goal of restoring the good biological status of the stocks. The quotas were accompanied by corrective measures to limit by-catches and minimise the impact on the covered stocks.
The Judgment:
The Court examined whether Annex IA to Regulation 2020/123 was valid, insofar as it had, for the year 2020, fixed the contested quotas above the zero catch level recommended by the ICES advice issued in 2019 for the stocks of cod to the west of Scotland and in the Celtic Sea, whiting in the Irish Sea, and plaice in the South Celtic Sea. It found that, since the quotas at issue applied to stocks that were caught exclusively as by-catch, the Council had discretion to determine whether it was possible to set those fishing limits at the level that would make it possible to achieve maximum sustainable yield and thus whether it was necessary to comply with the ICES zero catch advice. The Court noted that when the Council determined the quotas and allocated the fishing opportunities among the Member States, it was called upon to assess a complex economic situation, in respect of which it had, in principle, a broad discretion which related not only to determining the nature and scope of the measures to be taken but also, to a certain extent, to establishing the basic data.
It then found that the disputed fishing limits had been set, on the basis of the best scientific advice available, at a level which was not manifestly inappropriate to reconcile the objective of maintaining mixed fisheries in activity with that of restoring the good biological status of the stocks concerned. In addition, they were accompanied by corrective measures designed to limit the by-catches taken in 2020 on the stocks covered by these TACs and, consequently, the impact of the mixed fisheries in question on those stocks.
It therefore ruled that, in adopting those quotas, the Council did not manifestly exceed the limits of its discretion as defined by Regulation No 1380/2013. It therefore concluded that an examination of the facts had disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Annex IA to Regulation 2020/123, insofar as that annex fixed the disputed quotas for the year 2020.
Conclusion and Implications
The Court’s ruling emphasises the Council’s discretion in assessing economic situations and determining fishing measures. It affirms that the Council, in setting quotas for 2020, did not exceed the defined limits of its discretion as per Regulation No 1380/2013.
The judgment clarifies that the Council’s decisions were based on the best available scientific advice, and the chosen fishing limits were not manifestly inappropriate. As a result, the Court found no factors affecting the validity of Annex IA to Regulation 2020/123 concerning the disputed quotas for the year 2020.
