- The UK and EU are in a legal dispute over the UK’s ban on sandeel fishing.
- The case is being heard at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.
- The UK cites environmental concerns, emphasizing the protection of marine ecosystems.
- The EU argues the ban breaches the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, impacting Danish fisheries.
- A ruling is expected by late April, potentially affecting future UK-EU relations.
The Hague, Jan 28, 2025 – The UK and EU face their first post-Brexit legal battle. The dispute centers on the UK’s sandeel fishing ban in North Sea waters. It highlights rising tensions as both sides navigate their relationship under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) after Brexit.
The case is heard at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague. This venue resolves state disputes. As the first legal test of the TCA, the case is crucial. It may set a precedent for handling future UK-EU disagreements.
Background of the Dispute
In March 2024, the UK imposed a unilateral ban on sandeel fishing in its waters, citing serious environmental concerns. Sandeels, small eel-like fish, are a vital food source for predators like larger fish, marine mammals, and seabirds such as puffins. The UK argued the ban was necessary to protect these species and maintain balance.
The EU, however, claims the ban breaches the TCA by unfairly restricting EU fishing vessels, especially Danish fleets, which catch about 96% of the EU’s sandeel supply. They argue the UK’s decision is discriminatory and lacks a basis in the best available scientific evidence, prompting arbitration proceedings.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
The arbitration hearings began on January 28, 2025, at the PCA’s headquarters in The Hague. A tribunal of legal experts from France, New Zealand, and South Africa is overseeing the case. The hearings will run for three days, with the final ruling expected to arrive by late April.
The UK’s legal team defends the sandeel fishing ban, calling it a vital conservation step. They rely on scientific advice about the species’ declining resilience and its role in the food chain. By enforcing the ban, they aim to prevent overfishing and protect the sustainability of the North Sea ecosystem.
On the other hand, EU representatives argue the ban lacks solid evidence and is disproportionate. They point to its economic consequences, particularly for Danish fisheries. The EU claims the ban violates the TCA’s provisions, which allow EU vessels access to UK waters during the transition period ending in mid-2026.
Balancing Conservation and Trade: A Post-Brexit Dilemma
The financial stakes of the dispute may seem modest, with the UK estimating a potential revenue loss of £45 million ($56.3 million) for non-UK vessels. However, the political and environmental consequences are much larger. If the ruling goes against the UK, it could trigger EU retaliatory measures, further straining post-Brexit relations and complicating ongoing bilateral discussions.
Environmental groups, like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), have applauded the UK’s ban, pointing to concerns over seabird population declines and the marine ecosystem’s health. They believe industrial-scale sandeel fishing harms not only the target species but also the predators that depend on them. This has made the ban a critical move for protecting marine biodiversity.
The arbitration’s outcome will set a crucial precedent for balancing environmental conservation with trade agreements in the post-Brexit era. It highlights the delicate balance between national sovereignty, international obligations, and environmental responsibility. As both sides await the tribunal’s decision, this case underlines the need for cooperation in managing shared resources and fostering sustainable trade practices.