R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Agegate Ltd ; Case C3/87 ; The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Jaderow Ltd and Others ; Case C216/87
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1989 |
| Date | 14 December 1989 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Before O Due, President, and Judges Sir Gordon Slynn, C N Kakouris, F A Schockweiler, T Koopmans, G F Mancini, R Joliet, T F O'Higgins, G C Rodriguez Iglesias, F Grevisse and M Diez de Velasco
Advocate General J Mischo
European Communities - fishing quotas - crewing conditions
A requirement that 75 per cent of a crew of a fishing vessel had to reside ashore in the territory of a member state as a condition for the authorization of that vessel to fish against the fishing quotas attributed to that state was irrelevant to the aim of the quota system and could not be justified by that aim.
Conditions designed to ensure that there was a real economic link between a vessel authorized to fish against national quotas and the member state in question might be justified if the purpose of such conditions was that the population dependent on fisheries and related industries should benefit from the quotas.
UK fishing legislation
Under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, as amended by the Fishery Limits Act 1976 and the Fisheries Act 1981, fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom had to have a fishing licence.
That legislation had been supplemented by the British Fishing Boats Act 1983, the British Fishing Boats Order 1983 and the Sea Fish Licensing Order 1983.
The fishing licences granted pursuant to that legislation by the UK authorities as from January 1, 1986 determined the fishing areas and the species of fish covered by the licences and stated the conditions which had to be fulfilled cumulatively at all times, failing which the licences would be revoked.
The purpose of those conditions was to ensure that the fishing vessels had a "real economic link" with the UK. They concerned first, the operation of the vessel for which the licence was granted and, second, its crew.
The conditions relating to the operation of the fishing vessel required it to operate from the United Kingdom, Isle of Man or Channel Islands and provided that a vessel would be deemed to have been so operating if for each six-month period in the calendar year either (a) at least 50 per cent by weight of the vessel's landings were landed and sold in the UK, Isle of Man or Channel Islands, or (b) other evidence was provided of the vessel's presence in the UK, Isle of Man or Channel Islands ports on at least four occasions at intervals of at least 15 days.
The conditions relating to the crew of the fishing vessel required at least 75 per cent of the crew to be British citizens or EEC nationals (excluding until January 1, 1993 any Spanish or Portuguese nationals) ordinarily resident on shore in the UK, the Isle of Man or the Channel
Islands, and that the skipper and all the crew had to be making contributions to UK National Insurance or the equivalent Isle of Man or Channel Islands schemes.
The main proceedings
The applicant in Case C3/87 was the owner of a fishing vessel which was registered in the UK and flew the British flag. The crew of the vessel was partly composed of Spanish share fishermen, that is to say fishermen who were remunerated by a share of the proceeds of sale of their catches.
On January 23, 1986 the applicant obtained a series of new licences for that vessel. The licences stipulated the crewing conditions summarized above.
Considering that the conditions imposed were, inter alia, contrary to Community law, the applicants sought judicial review of the licences before the High Court.
After January 1, 1986 the applicants in Case C216/87 had obtained a series of licences for their fishing vessels registered in the UK and flying the British flag. The licences granted stipulated the condition relating to the operation of the fishing vessel mentioned above.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food requested the applicants to prove, in respect of the period from January 1 to June 13, 1986 that the conditions relating to the operation of their fishing vessels had been observed.
After an exchange of correspondence the minister notified the applicants of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 5)
...be upheld by the European Court." 61On 18 November 1988 Mr. Advocate-General Mischo gave his opinion (a) in Jaderow ( Case C-216/87) [1989] E.C.R. 4509, 4525, para. 7 that: "Community law does not therefore restrict the power which each Member State has under public international law to det......
-
R v Coventry Airport, ex parte Phoenix Aviation ; R v Dover Harbour Board, ex parte Peter Gilder and Sons ; R v Associated British Ports, ex parte Plymouth City Council
... ... Queen's Bench Divisional Court Before Lord Justice ... authority operated which was said in each case to be relevant to the question whether the ... ...
-
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 5)
...be upheld by the European Court." 61On 18 November 1988 Mr. Advocate-General Mischo gave his opinion (a) in Jaderow ( Case C-216/87) [1989] E.C.R. 4509, 4525, para. 7 that: "Community law does not therefore restrict the power which each Member State has under public international law to det......
-
R v Coventry Airport [QBD]
...ex parte BlackburnELR [1968] 2 QB 1.18. R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex parte Jaderow LtdECAS (Case 216/87) [1989] ECR 4509. R v Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great BritainUNK [1989] 2 CMLR 751. R v Somerset County Council, ex parte FewingsWLR [1995] 1 WLR 1037. R v Univ......