No appeal was filed from a judgment acquitting two foreigners of illegal fishing in Malta’s conservation zone, leaving Maltese fishermen in a quandary, the Times of Malta has learnt.
Local fishermen have warned of “massive repercussions”, noting that the decision would set a precedent for future, similar cases and create competition in a zone which had been strictly regulated to protect the island’s fragile marine ecosystem.
Sources told this newspaper that, although the Fisheries Department was likely to have preferred to appeal, it had not been informed of the judgment handed down on October 14. By the time it learnt of the case when it was reported by this newspaper on Wednesday, the statutory eight-day appeal period had elapsed.
Police Inspector James Grech, who prosecuted in the case, said the magistrate’s decision was clearly articulated and he had not felt the need to file an appeal. He said a representative of the Fisheries Department had only attended the first sitting.
The case dates to June 2008 when a French-flagged tuna fishing vessel captained by Frenchman Fontanet Silvere and owned by Moroccan Serge Antoine Jose Perez was apprehended by a patrol boat within Malta’s 25-mile conservation zone.
At the time, the captain had told the police the tuna had been legally caught outside Malta’s conservation zone and that the vessel had unintentionally drifted into Maltese waters after its vessel monitoring system allegedly broke down.
The Saint Antoine Marie was a purse seine vessel (employing a seine or dragnet) licensed to fish for Bluefin tuna by the international conservation authority, ICCAT.
However, Maltese law states that fishing by a foreign vessel in Maltese fishing waters is prohibited unless authorised by a special licence issued by the Fisheries Department.
Defence lawyers Joseph Giglio and Pio Valletta argued that such a prohibition was nullified by EU law, which said that purse seine vessels did not require a licence.
The fishermen were in possession of a ‘special fishing permit’ issued in France and were included in the European Community Fleet Register, the defence pointed out.
There were also numerous European Court of Justice rulings which confirmed the supremacy of EU law over national legislation in case of a conflict between the two.
Magistrate Antonio Micallef Trigona ruled that, since the accused were in conformity with Community rules regarding special fishing rights, they were not prohibited from fishing within the Maltese management zone once conferred with a special fishing permit.
Malta’s former permanent representative to the EU, Richard Cachia Caruana, told this newspaper it was not correct to differentiate between Maltese law and EU law on the matter because Malta’s fisheries management zone was enshrined in EU law.
Back in 2002, Malta closed negotiations on the area of fisheries after more than a year of intense discussions. Malta and the EU reached an agreement on a 25-mile fisheries management zone around the Maltese islands that was to be managed by the Maltese authorities for conservation purposes.
The former general secretary of the National Fisheries Cooperative, Raymond Bugeja, said the law governing the 25-mile zone was very clear.
No vessel larger than 12 metres was allowed to fish in the zone, he said, noting that purse seiners were generally about 30 metres long.
The only exceptions granted by special permits were related to trawlers smaller than 24 metres with a low horsepower, dolphin fish (lampuki) fishing and lampara fishing (for bogue and mackerel).
“It’s very worrying. It’s not that I wanted the fishermen to be penalised but they should at least have been given a warning. The regulations say you can’t fish but then the court sentence says you can – which is correct?
“I’m very disappointed that the Fisheries Department did not follow the case,” Mr Bugeja added, pointing out that the department was the body set up to safeguard the 25-mile zone.
Paul Piscopo, secretary of the Għaqda Koperattiva tas-Sajd, also lambasted the Fisheries Department for not closely following the case, adding that three people were employed at the department’s legal office, including a lawyer.
“It’s really disappointing that the case was lost on such a banality,” he said.