Introduction

The case of Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v Minister for Agriculture, Food, and the Marine & Ors ([2022] IEHC 64) addresses the legality of fisheries management practices under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the European Union. The applicant, a registered charity actively involved in environmental issues, challenged the legality of Council Regulation (EU) 2020/123, which set the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for certain fish species in 2020. The primary contention was that the regulation breached the CFP by disregarding scientific advice from the International Council on the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), thereby undermining the objective of achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Justice Barr delivered a judgment addressing the mootness of the application and whether a reference should be made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling on the validity of Regulation 2020/123. Initially, the respondent argued that the case was moot since the regulation and the associated fisheries management notices had expired. However, the court recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine, particularly when disputes involve statutory interpretation or issues of public importance likely to recur. Concluding that the case met these exceptions, the High Court decided to allow the proceedings to continue and refer the central legal question to the CJEU.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key precedents to navigate the doctrine of mootness and the interpretation of EU law:

• Goold v. Collins [2004] IESC 38: Established the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to mootness.
• Foto Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lubeck - Ost (Case C-314/85): Affirmed that national courts cannot declare EU measures invalid but must refer questions to the CJEU.
• Kingdom of Spain v. The Council (Case C-128/15): Highlighted the complexity of setting TACs in mixed fisheries and the Council’s discretion in such matters.
• O'Brien v. PIAB (No. 2) [2007] 1 IR 328: Discussed exceptions to mootness involving issues of public importance.
• Roe v. Wade [1973] 410 US 113 and Whelan v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison [2015] IEHC 273: Provided international perspectives on the mootness doctrine.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed a multi-faceted approach to interpret the CFP and assess the validity of the regulation:

• Doctrine of Mootness: The High Court recognized that while the regulation had expired, exceptions to the mootness rule applied due to the regulation's limited duration and the public importance of the issue.
• Interpretative Approaches: The court outlined the literal, schematic, and teleological approaches used by the CJEU in interpreting EU law, emphasizing the mandatory nature of Art. 2(2) of the CFP.
• Mandatory Compliance: Art. 2(2) of the CFP was interpreted as a binding obligation requiring TACs to align with the best available scientific advice to achieve MSY by 2020.
• Assessment of Scientific Advice: The court found that ICES’s advice, which recommended zero TAC for certain species to achieve MSY, constituted the best available scientific advice, and the Council's regulation exceeded these recommendations.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for future fisheries management under the CFP:

• Strengthening CFP's Objectives: Reinforces the mandatory nature of achieving MSY and adhering to scientific advice in setting TACs.
• Judicial Oversight: Ensures that fisheries regulations are subject to judicial review to confirm compliance with EU law, preventing councils from bypassing scientific recommendations.
• Precedent for Future Cases: Establishes a precedent for environmental and regulatory groups to challenge fisheries management decisions that may contravene established EU policies.
• Balance Between Conservation and Socio-Economic Factors: Highlights the ongoing tension between ecological sustainability and the economic interests of the fishing industry, guiding future regulatory frameworks.