Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 92002E001849

    WRITTEN QUESTION E-1849/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Illegal red seabream catch proposals.

    Dz.U. C 28E z 6.2.2003, p. 148–148 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

    European Parliament's website

    92002E1849

    WRITTEN QUESTION E-1849/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Illegal red seabream catch proposals.

    Official Journal 028 E , 06/02/2003 P. 0148 - 0148


    WRITTEN QUESTION E-1849/02

    by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

    (28 June 2002)

    Subject: Illegal red seabream catch proposals

    In its proposal for a regulation(1), the Commission proposes that two Member States should be granted rights to catch red seabream within ICES Sub-Area X.

    However, Regulation 2027/95(2), as amended by Regulation 149/99(3), states that the fishing effort of those Member States in ICES Sub-Area X shall be zero for deep-sea species (within which category the red seabream should be classified) and demersal species.

    The above regulation has not been repealed and is, furthermore, cited in the recitals of the Commission proposal.

    It therefore appears necessary to ask the Commission to explain its proposal.

    Is the Commission aware of the serious implications which its policy concerning deregulated fishing incentives could have for fisheries sustainability in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Azores Autonomous Region?

    (1) COM(2001) 764.

    (2) OJ L 199, 24.8.1995, p. 1.

    (3) OJ L 18, 23.1.1999, p. 3.

    Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

    (1 August 2002)

    It is not correct that the two Member States referred to have a zero fishing effort allocation in ICES Division X under the terms of the Western Waters effort Regulation scheme (Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 establishing a system for the management of fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 149/1999 of 19 January 1999). These Member States have a zero fishing effort allocation only in the part of ICES Division X that is under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Portugal, and may legitimately deploy fishing effort in other parts of ICES Division X. Therefore, the Commission's proposal is consistent with existing legislation.

    The two Member States in question have been allocated very small quotas of 10 tonnes each, to cover by-catches and to avoid discarding in exploratory fishing. These quantities are too small to have any significant effect on the sustainability of the stock.

    Top