WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1078/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Fishing issues in Essex and Kent
Date: 1996-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: EC Directive, South East (England), United Kingdom, application of EU law, discarded fish, fishing licence, quantity of fish landed, ship's flag













EUR-Lex - 91996E1078 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1078

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1078/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Fishing issues in Essex and Kent  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0004 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1078/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)Subject: Fishing issues in Essex and KentCould the Commission confirm that the UK Government could unilaterally alter the licensing scheme so that all British flagged boats had to visit British ports four times a year and land 50 per cent of their catch in Britain? If so, why has the British Government not implemented this? If not, which EU directive needs to be amended?Joint answer to Written Questions E-1074/96, E-1075/96, E-1076/96, E-1078/96, E-1079/96, E-1080/96, E-1081/96 and E-1082/96 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)Under the terms of the common fisheries policy, the Council decides, following a proposal by the Commission, the total allowable catches (TAC) and their allocation to Member States on a yearly basis. TAC proposals are based on the most appropriate scientific advice, provided by the International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) and the Scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries (STECF). These advisory bodies, which act in a scientific manner, independently of the nationality of their members, are well informed of all the results of scientific work utilised in assessing the state of fish stocks. In sofar as allocation is concerned, the Commission's proposal is based on the principle of relative stability, which reflects the orientations agreed by the Council. It is in this context that the share of common sole available to British fishermen is adopted by the Council.Once the TAC is divided into quotas, it is up to the authorities of Member States to make the best use of these fishing opportunities. The regulation of the latter by month, by individual vessel, or by producers' organisation, is a matter for which Community action is not justified, and therefore the principle of subsidiarity is fully applicable. On the same basis, rules on eligiblity for decommissioning are left to national jurisdiction provided they are compatible with Community legislation on the subject. The Commission, in any case, is consulted in order to confirm that the conditions applicable to state aids are compatible with Community legislation. In the particular case of the 100-days limit, the Commission believes that weather conditions do not constitute a sufficient impediment that would result in a discrimination of smaller vessels.As far as the right of access to the 6-12 mile band is concerned, this applies primarily to Member States. It is their responsibility to allocate this right to individual vessels. The allegation that Belgium and other Member States are abusing their rights is not supported by the information at the disposal of the Commission.The Commission has discussed the issue of discards on several occasions and in several fora with representatives of administrations, scientists and the fishing sector. It was concluded that the landing of all fish caught (discard ban) is not a feasible solution under the current overall policy. Instead, the problem of discarding should be addressed by means of a better utilisation of technical measures aiming at a better selectivity and specialisation of fishing gear.In its ruling of 14 December 1989 in the case C-216/87 'Jaderow' ((Reports of cases 1989, 4509 (4541). )), the Court held that Member States may determine which vessels in their fishing fleets will be allowed to fish against their national quotas, provided that the criteria employed are compatible with Community law. In the same case the Court decided that Community law does not preclude a Member State from laying down the condition, in order to ensure that there is a real economic link between the vessel and the flag state, that the vessel is to operate from national ports, if that condition does not involve an obligation for the vessel to depart from a national port on all its fishing trips, nor does it preclude a Member State from accepting, as evidence of compliance with the condition that the vessel must operate from national ports, a specified periodic presence of the vessel in national ports, provided that the frequency with which the vessel is required to be present in those ports does not impose, directly or indirectly, an obligation to land the vessel's catches or a proportion of them in national ports, or hinder normal fishing operations. The Commission is of the opinion that the periodicity which can be required depends, for example, on the kind of fishing operations involved (high seas fishing or fishing in the exclusive economic zone). The question of implementation by the British government falls within the competence of the United Kingdom and should therefore be submitted to that government.