Judges cut loose NGO suit over European fishing quotas

LUXEMBOURG (CN) — The European Union’s General Court on Wednesday sided with the European Union in a closely watched case over fishing quotas, rejecting claims from an environmental group that the bloc failed to follow its own environmental laws.

ClientEarth, a London-based nonprofit, brought the case in 2022 after the European Council refused to revisit fishing limits adopted earlier that year. The group said those limits exceeded sustainable levels and should have been subject to internal environmental review under EU law. ClientEarth also argued that the council’s decision should have been subject to an internal review under the Aarhus Regulation, a law that allows NGOs to challenge environmental decisions.

But judges found that the council acted within its authority and dismissed the case in full.

In its ruling, the court said the council properly exercised discretion in setting annual catch limits. Emphasizing the complex realities of mixed fisheries, where multiple species are caught at the same time, the judges underscored the need to avoid unintended disruptions to fishing activities.

The court also noted that this discretion aligns with a precautionary approach, which “leaves the council a certain degree of leeway to decide, in the light of data uncertainties, which management and conservation measures it considers necessary and appropriate.”

The case centered on a regulation adopted in January 2022 that set catch limits for EU and U.K.-shared waters. Although an agreement on the quotas had been reached the previous month, there wasn’t enough time to finalize the legal text before the start of the new year. So the council initially adopted provisional figures based on scientific advice. These were later replaced by the final catch limits, adopted on March 3 and applied retroactively from the start of the year.

ClientEarth argued that even the initial catch allocations deserved review, citing potential damage to depleted fish stocks. But the court ruled that since those figures had already been replaced by the final agreed-upon quotas, there was no longer a legal purpose in reviewing them. The group’s challenge to the final limits is being heard in a separate case.

The court further dismissed the procedural claim under the Aarhus Regulation, finding that the act at issue did not meet the criteria for internal review. It cited the technical nature and limited duration of the regulation, concluding that such measures are not automatically subject to review under the Aarhus framework.

The NGO also claimed the council violated environmental law by setting quotas above recommended levels and failing to follow a precautionary approach. But the court found that in cases involving limited or uncertain data, such as for by-catch species, the EU retained discretion to decide what actions were justified.

The court held the council is obliged to consider scientific input when setting conservation measures, but emphasized that “fishery conservation measures need not be completely consistent with the scientific advice.” It added that even in the absence of clear or conclusive advice, the council may still adopt measures it considers necessary to ensure sustainable fishing and protect marine resources.

In one example, ClientEarth pointed to a species of Norway lobster where scientists had advised zero catches. The Council ultimately set a low quota — just 1.87 tons — to allow scientific monitoring. The court found that this remained consistent with expert advice and was not unlawful.

The judgment builds on the 2024 decision from the EU’s top court in Friends of the Irish Environment. That ruling confirmed the council may adopt catch limits for by-catch species even when scientific advice recommends zero catches, as long as it respects the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy — a framework aimed at ensuring that fishing is environmentally sustainable while supporting coastal communities and securing food supply.

ClientEarth’s related challenge to the Council’s final 2022 fishing limits is still pending before the General Court.