"Claimant Disadvantage Cannot Be Considered Greater Than Public Interest Such as Fisheries Resource Protection"
The Constitutional Court has ruled that the fisheries regulation (Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries ordinance) prohibiting fishermen licensed for large-scale trawl fishing from operating in the moving fishing zone at longitude 128 degrees east does not violate the Constitution.
The related regulation, created to prevent overfishing of fishery resources and to coordinate interests with small fishing vessels on the East Coast, was deemed to have a legitimate purpose and means.
According to the legal community on the 24th, the Constitutional Court decided the constitutional petition filed by large-scale trawl fishermen against the "Regulations on Permission and Reporting of Fisheries" (Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries ordinance) was constitutional by an 8 to 1 majority. Large-scale trawl fishing refers to a technologically intensive fishery using large fishing vessels with a total tonnage limit of 140 tons equipped with gear deployment boards.
The petitioners had been licensed by the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City to conduct large-scale trawl fishing from March 9, 2021, to December 31, 2022. The fishing area was the nationwide coastal waters with no seasonal restrictions on fishing, but a condition was imposed stating that "fishing is prohibited in the moving fishing zone at longitude 128 degrees east."
Accordingly, the petitioners claimed that this provision infringed on their freedom to work and filed a constitutional petition on May 13, 2021.
However, the Constitutional Court viewed the prohibition of fishing in the moving fishing zone at longitude 128 degrees east as a regulation aimed at protecting fishery resources and coordinating interests with other fisheries, and found the purpose and means to be appropriate and suitable.
The Court stated, "It can contribute to preventing conflicts with fishermen operating on the East Coast and reducing the possibility of overfishing, which has been identified as one of the causes of the decline in the production of squid. The provision is recognized as an appropriate means." In fact, squid migrate along the East Coast, and there have been concerns that large-scale trawl fishing, which has a high catch intensity, could excessively harvest squid, threatening the livelihoods of relatively small-scale East Coast fishermen.
The Court also noted that the decline in profits from large-scale trawl fishing is not solely due to the "prohibition of fishing in the moving fishing zone at longitude 128 degrees east." The Court said, "Since complex factors such as rising labor costs and increased fuel costs due to fluctuations in oil prices are involved, it is difficult to simply attribute the restriction on fishing areas under the challenged provision as the cause of the decrease in catch volume."
The Court emphasized, "The disadvantages suffered by the petitioners cannot be considered greater than the public interest of protecting fishery resources and coordinating domestic fisheries' interests."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
