Constitutionality of Ban on Large-Scale Trawl Fishing Upheld
"Public Interest in Resource Protection by Preventing Overfishing is Significant"
"Protecting Livelihoods of Small-Scale East Sea Fishermen"
The Constitutional Court ruled that the regulation prohibiting large-scale trawl fishing in the waters east of longitude 128 degrees does not violate the Constitution (2021HunMa533). This case originated from a constitutional complaint filed by fisherman A and others, who claimed an infringement on their freedom to work.
[Case Overview]
In March 2021, A and others received permission for large-scale trawl fishing from the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City. This permit allowed nearshore trawl fishing throughout the national coastal waters year-round, but according to the former Regulations on Permission and Reporting of Fisheries, fishing was prohibited in the waters east of longitude 128 degrees. A and others filed a constitutional complaint, arguing that this regulation infringed on their freedom to perform their occupation.
[Constitutional Court Decision]
The Constitutional Court, by an 8:1 majority, decided that the regulation does not violate the Constitution. The Court found that the provision meets the criteria of appropriateness of means, minimal infringement, and balance of interests.
1. Appropriateness of Means
The Court judged that the provision is an appropriate means as it can help prevent conflicts with East Coast fishermen and curb the overfishing of squid.
2. Minimal Infringement
It considered that excessive squid catches by large-scale trawl fishing could threaten the livelihoods of East Coast fishermen.
3. Balance of Interests
The Court held that the disadvantages suffered by A and others are not greater than the public interest of protecting fishery resources and coordinating domestic fisheries interests.
[Dissenting Opinion]
Justice Lee Eun-ae, in her dissenting opinion, pointed out the lack of sufficient evidence that large-scale trawl fishing causes significant harm to coastal fisheries in the East Sea. She also noted that considering the management difficulties of large-scale trawl fishing and the historical reasons for the regulation, it is difficult to conclude that the private interests restricted for A and others are smaller than the public interest.
[Conclusion]
The Constitutional Court’s decision confirmed that the prohibition of large-scale trawl fishing in the waters east of longitude 128 degrees does not violate the Constitution. This decision reflects the public interest purpose of protecting fishery resources and coordinating interests among fisheries. Although there was a dissenting opinion, the overall judgment prioritized the public interest.
Han Su-hyun, Legal News Reporter
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
