On Thursday 15 April, the Court of Justice of the EU dismissed the Netherlands’ appeal against the ban on fishing by vessels using electric pulse trawls (see EUROPE 12685/31).
The EU legislator is not obliged to base its legislative choice solely on scientific advice, according to the judgment (C-733/19).
In 2019, the legislation on technical measures provided that the use of electric pulse trawl remains possible during a transitional period (until 30 June 2021).
On 4 October 2019, the Netherlands brought an action before the Court for the annulment of the provisions of this regulation concerning electric pulse fishing vessels. The Netherlands argued inter alia that the EU legislature had not relied on the best scientific opinions available.
The Court recalls that the EU legislature is not obliged to base its legislative choice as to technical measures on the available scientific and technical opinions only.
According to the Court, the arguments presented by the Netherlands do not demonstrate the manifestly inappropriate nature of the technical measures in question.
In essence, while scientific opinions have identified some advantages with electric pulse trawling as opposed to beam trawling, these opinions also noted that a number of residual risks relating to the former had not yet been fully assessed.
Furthermore, although the scientific and technical studies available contain, at times, divergent assessments of the extent of the negative impacts of electric pulse fishing, none of them states, contrary to what the Netherlands maintains, that this method has no negative impact on the environment.
With regard to the argument put forward by the Netherlands based on the innovative nature of electric pulse trawling, the Court points out that the objective of the EU to promote scientific and technical progress does not mean that the legislature is obliged to transpose every new technique into a legislative act solely on the ground that it is innovative. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)