(Reference for a preliminary ruling– Common fisheries policy– Regulation (EC) No1224/2009

12In July 2017, the SFPA, the Single Control Authority for Ireland, designated for the purposes of Article5(5) of Regulation No1224/2009, had serious doubts as to the veracity and accuracy of the data concerning catches of nephrops in FU16 during the first half of that year, as recorded in the electronic fishing logbook held by the masters of Irish fishing vessels pursuant to Articles14 and 15 of Regulation No1224/2009.

13The masters of Irish fishing vessels had declared that they had caught 733tonnes of nephrops in FU16. The SFPA took the view that that figure was considerably lower than the actual quantity of nephrops caught in FU16 and that the nephrops caught in FU16 had been falsely declared as having been caught elsewhere. That authority calculated that 1991tonnes of nephrops had already been fished in FU16 in 2017, thus exceeding the annual TAC for Ireland, which for 2017 and for that subarea amounted to 1124tonnes.

14The SFPA’s calculation is based on what is known as the ‘time spent’ methodology, which consists of using data provided by fishers concerning, first, the time spent in a particular area and, second, the total catch. On the basis of those data, the SFPA recalculated the yield of a fishing trip based on the premiss that time spent in a certain area is a better indicator of the location of catches than data recorded in electronic fishing logbooks. That authority thus made a new allocation of catches on the basis of the time spent fishing in a given area. Under that methodology, if, by way of example, 75% of the total fishing time during a trip was spent in one area, 75% of the relevant catch would be attributed to that area.

15By letter of 14July 2017, the SFPA thus communicated the figure of 1991tonnes to the Minister and then to the European Commission. On the basis of that information, the Minister closed the fishery to vessels flying the Irish flag for the period from October to December 2017 and the Commission issued a notice of closure to fishers from all Member States on 2November 2017.

16In an action before the High Court (Ireland), the applicants in the main proceedings, who are fishermen active, inter alia, in the FU16 subarea, claimed to have suffered serious economic loss as a result of that closure and challenged, inter alia, the lawfulness of the method used by the SFPA and, by extension, the validity of the closure decision taken by the Minister.

17By judgment of 30October 2018, the High Court dismissed the action of the applicants in the main proceedings, and they then appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court (Ireland), which is the referring court.

18In their appeal, the applicants in the main proceedings submit that the use of the ‘time spent’ methodology has no legal basis in the relevant legislation. The court of first instance erred in considering that that methodology had as its legal basis the fundamental objectives of the CFP instead of applying the regulatory provisions, which, moreover, are clear.

19In particular, the applicants in the main proceedings submit that the data and information which must be taken into account by the competent authority when fishing catches are calculated are those contained in the fishing logbooks, referred to in Articles14 and 15 of Regulation No1224/2009. That authority should confine itself to transmitting those data to the Commission pursuant to Article33(2)(a) and Article34 of that regulation. By applying the ‘time spent’ methodology, the SFPA did not transmit the ‘data’ referred to in Regulation No1224/2009, but rather its expert opinion.

20The SFPA and the Minister point out that nothing in Regulation No1224/2009, and in particular Articles14, 15, 33 and 34 thereof, precludes the use by the SFPA of information other than that recorded in the fishing logbook where that authority has reasonable doubts as to the accuracy of that information. They argue that, although it is apparent from Articles14 and 15 of that regulation that the fishing logbook contains ‘data’ and ‘information’, there is nothing to suggest that it is only ‘data’ and ‘information’ which the Single Control Authority may notify to the Commission.

21The referring court states that the main questions of EU law which arise in the present case concern the interpretation of the terms ‘data’ and ‘information’ used in Regulation No1224/2009 and, in particular, whether the sea fisheries authority is limited, when making notifications to the Commission pursuant to Article33(2)(a) and Article34 of that regulation, to sending it the information contained in the fishing logbooks or whether, where it has a reasonable basis to doubt the reliability of that information, it may instead employ a reasonable and scientifically based method to analyse the data recorded in those fishing logbooks in order to obtain more accurate outtake figures for the purposes of those notifications.

22In those circumstances, the Supreme Court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)Is the Single Control Authority in a Member State, in notifying and certifying to the European Commission under Article33(2)(a) and Article34 of [Regulation No1224/2009], limited to notifying the data as to catch in a particular fishing ground logged by fishers under Articles14 and 15 of that regulation when the Single Control Authority for good reason believes the logged data to be grossly unreliable or is it entitled to employ reasonable, scientifically valid methods to treat and certify the logged data so as to achieve more accurate outtake figures for notification to the European Commission?

(2)Where the Authority is so satisfied, based on reasonable grounds, can it lawfully utilise other data flows such as fishing licences, fishing authorisations, vessel monitoring system data, landing declarations, sales notes and transport documents?’