Judgment: 2024-07-11 · Court archive

Court of Appeal to ask EU court whether Irish fisheries authority can require quayside weighing

The appeal over a 2020 landing in Killybegs remains undecided while the Court of Appeal seeks guidance on how EU weighing rules interact with Ireland’s control plan.

Court of Appeal · [2024] IECA 171

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Noel McDowell
  • Killybegs Fishing Enterprises
  • Killybegs Seafoods Unlimited
  • The Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation
What

The appeal over a 2020 landing in Killybegs remains undecided while the Court of Appeal seeks guidance on how EU weighing rules interact with Ireland’s control plan.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Killybegs
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 23 July 2024

    The parties were invited to make brief written submissions on the wording of the proposed question by 23 July 2024. The appeal’s final determination, including related arguments about the Authority’s actions, is to await the EU court’s answer.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court had rejected the operators’ arguments and found the Authority entitled to require a monitored quayside weighing. The Court of Appeal has not issued a final decision on the appeal. It proposed that the EU court be asked whether a Member State authority may insist on weighing in the presence of officials under Article 60(6) when the Member State has an approved derogation under Article 61(1).

The Court of Appeal has proposed referring a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union about whether Ireland’s fisheries authority can require fish to be weighed at the quayside when an EU-approved plan permits weighing after transport to a processing facility.

The appeal by Noel McDowell, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd, Killybegs Seafoods Unlimited and the Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation concerns a monitored weighing of the Atlantic Challenge’s catch at Killybegs in October 2020. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority required the catch to be weighed before transport. The operators argued that an EU derogation allowing weighing after transport meant the Authority could not require that procedure.

In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2024, the Court of Appeal said the derogation expressly applies to the ordinary requirement to weigh on landing, but does not mention the separate power to require weighing in the presence of officials. The judgment said that, on its reading, the Authority could in principle use that separate power even when a control plan was in place. The court nevertheless decided to seek the EU court’s interpretation before finally determining the appeal.

The catch was weighed on a quayside weighbridge under protest. It was not dewatered beforehand, and the herring was not separated from the mackerel for that weighing. A later factory weighing recorded 449,985kg of mackerel and 12,189kg of herring. The judgment records that the Authority accepted the quayside return was inaccurate in those circumstances. It also says there was no allegation against these appellants in the broader concerns about reported catch figures.

The High Court had rejected the operators’ arguments and found the Authority entitled to require a monitored quayside weighing. The Court of Appeal has not issued a final decision on the appeal. It proposed that the EU court be asked whether a Member State authority may insist on weighing in the presence of officials under Article 60(6) when the Member State has an approved derogation under Article 61(1).

The parties were invited to make brief written submissions on the wording of the proposed question by 23 July 2024. The appeal’s final determination, including related arguments about the Authority’s actions, is to await the EU court’s answer.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review