Three years ago, Germany and the Netherlands proposed establishing fishing bans in certain areas of the North Sea to counter fishing activity, a proposal that the European Commission subsequently adopted. The fishing bans implemented at that time affect the areas of Sylter Außenriff, Borkum-Riffgrund, Doggerbank, the Eastern German Bight, as well as Klaverbank, Friese Front, and Centrale Oestergronden. The rationale for these protective measures is that the harvesting of crabs and fish, particularly using bottom trawls and other "bottom-contacting gear", causes excessive damage to the seabed. To protect the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and several seabird species, further restrictions are in place for fishing with gillnets and entangling nets. The habitat of these marine organisms is severely threatened as a result. In parts of these marine protected areas, fishing is entirely prohibited.
The Verband der Deutschen Kutter- und Küstenfischer filed a lawsuit against these measures – and was unsuccessful before the General Court of the European Union in the first instance (judgment of 21.05.2025, Case T-265/23). The association can still lodge an appeal against the judgment with the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH), meaning it is not yet legally binding.
The General Court dismissed all of the association's objections against the measures in their entirety. It ruled that they constitute effective and permissible measures for the protection of the marine environment. Contrary to the association's view, the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive also provides a sufficient legal basis for incorporating gravel beds into the scope of protection. The court stated that the European Commission possesses wide discretion regarding the fishing ban. According to the court, the association failed to demonstrate that the Commission exceeded this discretion. The fishermen's association provided no scientific evidence to support its claim that a less extensive fishing ban would have sufficed to protect the areas. In contrast, the Commission relied on scientific recommendations that encompassed extensive areas due to habitat interactions: only in this manner could the entire ecosystem be adequately protected.
Urteil (deutsche Fassung):
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=300408&pageIndex=0&doclang=de&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4604416
