COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - Behaviour which seriously infringed the rules of the common fisheries policy in 2001

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Behaviour which seriously infringed the rules of the common fisheries policy in 2001

1. introduction

In 1999 the Council introduced a list of types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the common fisheries policy [1]. This entailed reaching agreement at Community level on a range of types of behaviour on the part of economic operators in the fishing industry considered particularly prejudicial to the proper application of Community law under the common fisheries policy. Because of its seriousness, such behaviour should attract 'proportional, effective and dissuasive' penalties imposed by the national authorities.

[1] Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999 establishing a list of types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the common fisheries policy (OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 5).

In the interests of transparency, the Council stipulated also that Member States must report to the Commission annually on each procedure initiated in respect of operators who may have committed a 'serious infringement'. This communication contains statistical data covering the reports from the Member States on the procedures initiated in 2001.

The information which Member States must transmit about infringements appearing on the list drawn up by the Council concerns in particular the type of procedure initiated, the area in which the infringement was committed, and the penalties imposed [2]. Cases which must be reported to the Commission comprise those on which an official report has been drawn up by a national authority.

[2] Commission Regulation (EC) No 2740/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999 establishing a list of types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the common fisheries policy (OJ L 328, 22.12.1999, p. 62).

The legislator's intention was that an examination of this information should enable comparisons to be made between Member States and an assessment arrived at as to whether the penalties actually imposed were adequate and therefore dissuasive.

In presenting the data for 2000 in its first Report [3], the Commission expressed regret that the Member States had failed to fulfil their obligations and that it was not possible therefore to draw unequivocal conclusions from the available statistics. Commenting on the figures contained in the tables attached to the communication, the Commission concluded nevertheless that there were substantial differences between the Member States' control systems and arrangements for imposing penalties and that the level of penalties imposed did not appear to be high enough to discourage the repetition of infringements.

[3] COM(2001) 650 of 12.11.2001.

This was borne out by the Commission Report on the monitoring of the implementation of the common fisheries policy: Synthesis of the implementation of the control system applicable to the common fisheries policy by Member States [4].

[4] COM(2001) 526 of 28.9.2001.

It was felt that the situation was unlikely to encourage compliance with the rules of the CFP across the Member States. New initiatives were called for, therefore, both from the Member States and the Commission.

The European Parliament, furthermore, shared the views of the Commission regarding the Member States. Parliament, at the same time, asked for improvements to reports in the years to come [5].

[5] See report by Mrs Elspeth Attwooll (A5-0228/2002 final).

Regarding 2000, since some Member States -- which had not presented the necessary data -- provided additional information after the communication had been published, it seemed appropriate to update the table it contained showing the number of infringements uncovered during 2000 so that comparisons could be made over two years. The updated table is shown in Annex II to this document.

2. REPORTS FROM MEMBER STATES FOR 2001

The Member States were required to forward to the Commission, not later than 31 March 2002, by electronic transmission in compliance with the electronic format presented at the meeting of the Experts' Group on Monitoring and Control on 21 February 2000 (working paper: FIDES II Message Definition [6]) details of cases discovered in 2001. All Member States transmitted their reports by electronic mail. Most were received after the 31 March deadline however (Annex I) and instructions concerning codes were not followed in full, which meant that adjustments had to be made and the presentation of the document [7] was delayed.

[6] FIDES: Fisheries Information Data Exchange System.

[7] It was not possible, for example, to produce a complete table showing infringements by fishing area because of failure to use the proper codes.

The situation in the individual Member States can be summarised as follows:

2.1. BELGIUM

Belgium discovered and reported 56 serious breaches covering 6 types of behaviour. Thirty-two cases concerned vessels flying the Belgian flag or involved Belgian fishermen. The majority (21 cases) concerned unauthorised fishing [D5]. Criminal proceedings were initiated in all cases and penalties imposed in 18. In the case of unauthorised fishing, penalties were imposed in only 5 out of 21 cases [D5]. The average fine in 11 cases was EUR 2 356 and ranged from EUR 7 436 for the use or holding on board of prohibited gear [D1] to EUR 869 for unauthorised fishing [D5]. Belgium ordered the seizure of catches in 11 cases, including 2 cases of unauthorised fishing [D5] and 9 cases of falsifying or failing to record data in control documents [E1]. Belgium reported no licence withdrawals.

2.2. DENMARK

Denmark discovered and reported 381 serious breaches covering 10 types of behaviour. The two main types of infringement were falsifying data in control documents [E1] (202 cases) and the use or holding on board of prohibited gear [D1] (93 cases). Three hundred and fifty-five cases concerned vessels flying the Danish flag or involved Danish fishermen. In the majority of cases (241) an administrative procedure was launched and in 123 criminal proceedings, while in 6 cases both types of procedures were initiated. Fines were imposed in 276 cases, including only 124 out of 202 cases of falsifying data in control documents [E1]. The average fine was EUR 369 and ranged from EUR 202 for falsifying data in control documents [E1] to EUR 1 342 for the landing of fishery products in breach of the control rules [F1]. Denmark also ordered the seizure of catches or gear in 11 cases, including 4 cases of unauthorised fishing [D5]. By contrast, 91 orders for licence withdrawals were made, above all for the use or holding on board of prohibited gear [D1].

2.3. GERMANY

Germany discovered and reported 120 serious breaches, of which 109 concerned vessels flying the German flag or involved German fishermen. The cases reported fell within 7 categories of behaviour. The majority (83 cases) involved falsifying data in control documents [E1]. An administrative procedure was initiated in all cases and penalties were imposed in 99. The average fine was EUR 522 and ranged from EUR 56 for failure to observe the rules on minimum sizes [D6] to EUR 6 141 for unauthorised fishing [D5]. Germany reported no cases of seizure or licence withdrawal.

2.4. GREECE

Greece discovered and reported 364 serious breaches (two concerning vessels flying the flag of another Member State and one concerning a vessel flying the flag of a third country) involving 8 types of behaviour. The two main types of infringement were unauthorised fishing [D5] (178 cases) and the use of prohibited fishing methods [D2] (72 cases). Administrative procedures were launched in 349 cases and criminal as well as administrative procedures in 15 cases. Fines were imposed in 336 cases with an average in 320 cases of EUR 811, ranging from EUR 1 032 for the use of prohibited fishing methods [D2] to EUR 300 for fishing using falsified documents [C2]. Greece also ordered the seizure of catches or gear in 136 cases, including 45 cases of unauthorised fishing [D5] and 40 cases of failure to observe the rules on minimum sizes [D6]. Frequent use was made of orders for licence withdrawals (235 cases), above all for unauthorised fishing [D5].

2.5. SPAIN

Spain discovered and reported 3 717 serious breaches covering all the types of behaviour included on the list (the type of behaviour was not specified in 6 cases). The large majority of cases (1 226) concerned unauthorised fishing [C1] and unauthorised fishing in a specified area or during a specified period [D5] (684 cases). Breaches in 3 662 cases concerned vessels flying the Spanish flag or involved Spanish fishermen. An administrative procedure was initiated in all cases apart from four where both criminal and administrative procedures were launched. Fines were imposed in 2 966 cases. The average fine in 2 803 cases was EUR 928 and ranged from EUR 3 005 for failure to stow unauthorised gear [D3] to EUR 241 for falsifying the identification marks of a vessel [C3]. Orders for the seizure of catches or gear were made in 43 cases, including 21 cases of unauthorised fishing [C1]. Spain reported no case of withdrawal of a licence.

2.6. FRANCE

France discovered and reported 372 serious breaches involving 12 types of behaviour. Two hundred and ninety-four cases concerned vessels flying the French flag or involved French fishermen. The two main types of behaviour were falsifying data in control documents [E1] (104 cases) and failure to observe the rules on minimum sizes [D6] (73 cases). An administrative procedure was launched in 115 cases and criminal proceedings in 254 while both kinds of procedure were launched in three cases. Penalties were imposed in only 103 out of 372 cases. The average fine in 35 cases was EUR 2 483 and ranged from EUR 30 000 [8] for fishing without a licence or other authorisation [C1] to EUR 114 for landing fishery products not complying with the rules on control and enforcement [F1]. France ordered the seizure of catches or gear in 53 cases, including 15 cases of failure to comply with the rules on minimum sizes [D6]. An order for the withdrawal of a fishing licence was made in one case only.

[8] This appears to be the highest fine. It should be noted, however, that unlike the other data reported, this is not an average value.

2.7. IRELAND

Ireland discovered and reported 63 serious breaches covering 11 types of behaviour, the two main ones being falsifying data in control documents [E1] (23 cases) and directed fishing for, or the keeping on board of, a prohibited species [D4] (13 cases). Forty-eight cases concerned vessels flying the Irish flag or involved Irish fishermen. Criminal proceedings were initiated in 42 cases and fines were imposed in 29. The average fine in 32 cases was EUR 7 470 and varied widely from EUR 15 250 for the use or holding of unauthorised gear [D1] to EUR 95 for the landing of products not complying with the control rules [F1]). Ireland reported 18 cases of seizure, including 5 for falsifying data in control documents [E1] and directed fishing for, or the keeping on board of, an unauthorised species [D4]. Ireland reported no cases of withdrawal of a licence.

2.8. ITALY

Italy discovered and reported 1 628 serious breaches (one concerning a third-country vessel and 33 where the flag country was not indicated) involving 13 types of behaviour (in 26 cases, the type of behaviour was unspecified). The two main types were unauthorised fishing [D5] (669 cases) and failure to observe marketing standards [F2] (228). In 1 258 cases an administrative procedure was launched, in 304 cases criminal proceedings and in 2 cases both criminal and administrative procedures. Fines were imposed in 1 564 cases. The average fine in 1 143 cases was EUR 1 350 and ranged from EUR 3 665 for failure to meet marketing standards [F2] to EUR 57 for failure to comply with the rules on the remote transmission of vessel movements [E3]. In addition, Italy ordered the seizure of catches and gear in 1 095 cases, including 429 cases of unauthorised fishing [D5] and 222 of failure to meet marketing standards [F2]. Italy ordered the withdrawal of licences in only four cases.

2.9. THE NETHERLANDS

The Netherlands discovered and reported 167 serious breaches (128 in cases concerning vessels flying the Dutch flag or involving Dutch fishermen and 39 concerning vessels flying the flag of another Member State or involving fishermen of another nationality) covering 13 types of behaviour. The two main types were falsifying data in control documents [E1] (47 cases) and failure to observe the rules on minimum sizes [D6] (41 cases). An administrative procedure was launched in 68 cases and criminal proceedings in 99 cases. Fines were imposed in only 46 cases however. The seizure of catches and gear was ordered in 40 cases, and fines imposed in 9 cases. The average fine was EUR 653 and varied widely from EUR 1 174 for unauthorised fishing [D5] to EUR 82 for falsifying data in control documents [E1]. Seizures were ordered mainly for cases of unauthorised fishing [D5] (16 cases) and failure to observe the rules on minimum sizes [D6] (18 cases). The Netherlands reported no cases of withdrawal of a licence.

2.10. AUSTRIA

Austria reported one case only of a serious breach for failure to meet the marketing standards for fishery products [F2].

2.11. PORTUGAL

Portugal discovered and reported 1 118 serious breaches (1 078 cases concerning vessels flying the Portuguese flag or involving Portuguese fishermen, 27 cases of vessels flying the flag of another Member State or involving fishermen who were nationals of another Member State, and 13 cases where the flag State or nationality was not indicated) covering 13 types of behaviour (in two cases the type was not specified). The two main types of serious breach were unauthorised fishing [D5] (410 cases) and fishing without a licence or other authorisation [C1] (241 cases). In 1 035 cases an administrative procedure was launched and in one case only criminal proceedings. Fines were imposed in 579 cases only, however. The average fine in 330 cases was EUR 4 309 and ranged from EUR 10 882 for the use or holding of unauthorised gear [D1] to EUR 312 for directed fishing for, or the keeping on board of, a prohibited species [D4]. Portugal ordered the seizure of catches or gear in 264 cases: these mainly involved unauthorised fishing [D5] (102 cases). Portugal reported no cases of a licence withdrawal.

2.12. FINLAND

Finland discovered and reported 12 serious breaches (all concerning vessels flying the Finnish flag or involving Finnish fishermen) covering 3 types of behaviour. The type recurring most frequently was unauthorised fishing [D5] (6 cases). In the majority of cases an administrative procedure was launched. Fines were imposed in four cases with the average being EUR 137 and ranging from EUR 191 for falsifying data in control documents [E1] to EUR 84 for unauthorised fishing [D5]. Finland reported no orders for the seizure of catches or gear or licence withdrawals.

2.13. SWEDEN

Sweden discovered and reported 44 serious infringements (33 cases concerning vessels flying the Swedish flag or involving Swedish fishermen, 3 cases concerning vessels flying the flag of another Member State or involving fishermen who were nationals of another Member State and 8 cases of vessels flying the flag of a third country or involving fishermen who were nationals of a third country) covering 9 types of behaviour. The two main types were fishing without a licence or other authorisation [C1] (10 cases) and falsifying data in control documents [E1] (7 cases). In 16 cases criminal proceedings were initiated and a fine was imposed in only 5 cases. The average fine was EUR 324 and ranged from EUR 367 for fishing without a licence or other authorisation [C1] to EUR 260 for falsifying data in control documents [E1]. Sweden ordered the seizure of catches or gear in 2 cases. It reported no cases of withdrawal of a licence.

2.14. UNITED KINGDOM

The United Kingdom discovered and reported 96 serious infringements (71 concerned vessels flying the UK flag or involved UK fishermen and 2 concerned vessels flying the flag of another Member State or involved fishermen who were nationals of another Member State) covering 10 types of behaviour. The majority (46 cases) concerned falsifying data in control documents [E1]. Criminal proceedings were instituted in 48 cases and an administrative procedure in 47 cases, with fines being imposed in 90 cases. The average fine in 84 cases was EUR 4 476 and ranged from EUR 6 334 for unauthorised fishing [D5] to EUR 343 for obstructing fisheries inspectors [A1]. The United Kingdom reported two orders for the seizure of catches or gear and no licence withdrawals.

For information, the table below shows, for each Member State, the number of vessels entered in the Fishing Vessel Register on 1 January 2002 together with the number of serious infringements discovered by that Member State in 2001:

>TABLE POSITION>

3. Other sources of information

In order to flesh out the information available about deterrent measures adopted by the Member States over a specified period, the Commission studied the other reports that were sent to it under other regulations and which were available when this document was being drawn up [9]. It examined the national reports forwarded under Article 35 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy [10], and those submitted under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3561/85 concerning information about inspections of fishing activities carried out by national control authorities [11], giving details of official warnings, administrative penalties and infringements brought to court.

[9] The deadlines for presenting reports differ depending on the Regulation.

[10] OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p.1.

[11] OJ L 339, 18.12.1985, p. 29.

This information is not easily comparable, as it is not in the same form as that on 'serious infringements'. Moreover, the aims of the other Regulations are not the same as those on which the list of infringements in Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999 is based. Until the rules are amended to simplify Member States' obligations to report infringements of the CFP rules, the Commission considers that non-standard formats may explain the apparent discrepancies between the various reports. In addition, it assumes that all the procedures initiated regarding serious infringements are listed in the tables attached to this document. Consequently, the cases included here comprise a total number only, for all Member States, of 1 757 written warnings, to be added to the number of serious infringements for which an administrative or judicial procedure has been launched.

The Commission emphasises also that the control arrangements put in place by a number of regional organisations, including the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation [12] (NAFO), the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the north-east Atlantic fisheries [13] (NEAFC) or the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) [14], deal with infringements of conservation measures adopted by the organisation concerned. Certain infringements are classed as 'serious' and call for inspection by the flag State [15].

[12] Council Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88 adopting provisions for the application of the scheme of joint international inspection adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation(OJ L 175, 6.7.1988, p. 1).

[13] Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 laying down certain control measures applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the north-east Atlantic fisheries (OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 1).

[14] Council Regulation (EC) No 1936/2001 laying down control measures applicable to fishing for certain stocks of highly migratory fish (OJ L 263, 3.10.2001, p. 1).

[15] The lists of serious infringements under the NAFO and the NEAFC are contained in point 9 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88 and Article 2(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999. The types of infringements do not differ in substance from the serious infringements under Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999. A proposal for a list of serious infringements within ICCAT, incorporating the NEAFC list, is under discussion.

The number of cases reported is very small and should be included in the report of serious infringements. The Commission will endeavour to obtain fuller information in future however.

4. conclusions

In total, the Member States reported 8 139 cases, a rise of around 12% on the number for 2000, following adjustment of the figures.

Regarding the most frequently recurring infringements, as in 2000, almost half the reported cases concerned unlawful fishing either without the necessary authorisation or in prohibited areas [C1 and D5]. By order of importance there were significant rises on 2000 in the number of breaches of the control rules applicable following landing [F1] and F2] and the rules on entries in the control documents [E1] [16], failure to observe the rules on minimum sizes [D 6] and the use of unauthorised gear [D1].

[16] In Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, this type of infringement (mainly incorrect entries in logbooks) is the commonest kind.

On the other hand, very few cases of official reports for obstructing the work of observers [B1] or failure to comply with the rules on transhipment [D7] were notified. The absence of information about certain types of infringements over a two-year period may imply that no deterrent national provisions exist or that they are not applied sufficiently stringent (e.g. tampering with the VMS [17] [E2]).

[17] Vessel monitoring system.

In terms of numbers of breaches recorded, third country vessels do not present a problem in so far as compliance with the rules of the CFP is concerned. Moreover, less than 4% of breaches concern vessels of a Member State other than that reporting the breach.

Regarding the amounts of fines, there were significant differences for the same type of breach. For example:

- in Sweden the average fine for fishing without a licence or other authorisation [C1] was EUR 367 while in France, in the only case reported, the fine was EUR 30 000;

- in Finland for unauthorised fishing [D5] the average fine was EUR 84 and in Ireland EUR 12 700;

- in Germany for directed fishing for, or the keeping on board of, a prohibited species [D4] the average fine was EUR 150 and in Ireland EUR 11 567.

Orders for the seizure of catches or gear were rare.

In the large majority of cases an administrative procedure was launched. In Belgium, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom criminal proceeding were launched systematically where an infringement was discovered as administrative procedures are less commonly used in those countries.

Regarding licence withdrawals, only Denmark and Greece, and to a lesser extent France and Italy imposed this type of penalty.

In 2001, 75% of infringement procedures were successfully concluded. Given the number of vessels (91 462) and the number of infringements for which fines were imposed (6 115), this means that procedures were launched in respect of 6.7% of vessels. The percentage is actually somewhat smaller since some procedures included in the total were initiated against on-shore operators [F2].

In the light of the official data and taking into account the number of Community fishing vessels, the Commission has the impression that the number of penalties imposed is probably not a true and complete mirror of the level of compliance with the rules of the CFP in 2001. Therefore, we could conclude that the number of checks is still inadequate. For these reasons more effort should be made by Member States in order to monitor the compliance of the fleet with the rules in question and to achieve the objectives of the conservation of existing marine resources.

The average fine of EUR 1 338 in the 4 969 cases where a fine was imposed does not seem to be a sufficient and effective deterrent. In 1 667 cases the seizure of catches and gear was ordered and in some cases this penalty, which may have a very considerable financial impact, was additional to a fine. The general impression nevertheless remains that the Member States' systems of deterrents are still inadequate.

The Commission calls upon the Member States, therefore, to make greater efforts to follow up breaches of the CFP rules, if necessary by amending their array of legal instruments. Depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate to introduce new legislative measures, increase the level of fines or raise awareness of the need for rational exploitation of marine resources in the authorities responsible for imposing penalties, which in most cases are not fisheries specialists.

The Commission, for its part, will continue to strive to ensure that the rules of the CFP are applied uniformly by Member States which must meet their obligation to adopt penalties that are proportionate, effective and dissuasive. As recommended in the conclusions of the report for 2000, detailed arrangements regarding infringements and their follow-up have been put forward therefore in the context of the reform of the CFP [18]. The Commission is proposing in particular that the Council determine the level of penalties to be imposed for serious infringements. The possibility of withdrawing authorisation to fish is also included as a particularly effective remedy.

[18] COM(2002)181 and 185 of 28.5.2002.

Regarding the annual report on serious infringements, the Commission considers this to be an effective means of improving the transparency of the various arrangements in force in the Member States for deterring infringements of the CFP rules. It hopes that the Member States will feel encouraged to make further improvements.

LIST OF tableS *

* information transmission dates (Annex I);

* number of cases discovered by type of behaviour and by Member State in 2000: revised table (Annex II);

* number of cases discovered by type of behaviour and by Member State (Annex III);

* number of cases discovered by nationality of the party which committed the infringement and by Member State (Annex IV);

* type of procedure initiated by type of behaviour and by Member State (Annex V);

* number of cases where penalties were imposed by type of behaviour and by Member State (Annex VI);

* average fine by type of behaviour and by Member State (Annex VII);

* number of seizures by type of behaviour and by Member State (Annex VIII);

* number of licence withdrawals by type of behaviour and by Member State (Annex IX);

* number of cases discovered at ports by type of behaviour and by Member State (Annex X).

*NB : Because some reports cover several types of infringement, the totals may not correspond with the number of cases shown in the boxes.

NATIONAL REPORTS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION

>TABLE POSITION>

ANNEX II

NUMBER OF SERIOUS BREACHES BY MEMBER STATE IN 2000

>TABLE POSITION>

NUMBER OF SERIOUS BREACHES BY MEMBER STATE IN 2001

>TABLE POSITION>

ANNEX IV

INFRINGEMENTS BY COUNTRY AND BY NATIONALITY IN 2001

>TABLE POSITION>

ANNEX V

TYPE OF PROCEDURE INITIATED (*) BY TYPE OF SERIOUS BREACH AND BY MEMBER STATE IN 2001

>TABLE POSITION>

(*) A = Administrative P = Criminal A & P = Administrative+criminal

ANNEX VI

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE PENALTIES WERE IMPOSED AND NUMBER OF BREACHES BY TYPE OF BEHAVIOUR AND BY MEMBER STATE IN 2001

>TABLE POSITION>

* in brackets, the number of cases discovered

ANNEX VII

AVERAGE FINE AND NUMBER OF BREACHES BY TYPE OF BEHAVIOUR AND BY MEMBER STATE IN 2001

>TABLE POSITION>

* in brackets, the number of cases where a fine was imposed

ANNEX VIII

NUMBER OF SEIZURES AND NUMBER OF BREACHES BY TYPE OF BEHAVIOUR AND BY MEMBER STATE IN 2001

>TABLE POSITION>

* in brackets, the number of cases discovered

ANNEX IX

NUMBER OF LICENCE WITHDRAWALS AND SERIOUS BREACHES BY MEMBER STATE IN 2001

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

ANNEX X

NUMBER OF SERIOUS BREACHES BY FISHING PORT IN 2001

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>