Administrative sanctions in fisheries law

68 Pages·2003·2.6 MB·English

by  Cacaud, P

Adminis^^e
sanctions
in fisheries law
FAO
LEGISLATIVE
Administrative sanctions STUDY
in fisheries law 82
P.Cacaud
M.Kuruc
M.Spreij
forthe
DevelopmentLawService
FAOlegalOffice
FOODANDAGRICULTUREORGANIZATIONOFTHEUNITEDNATIONS
Rome,2003
igi <d
Thedesignationsemployedandthepresentationofmaterialin
thisinformationproductdonotimplytheexpressionofany
opinionwhatsoeveronthepartoftheFoodandAgriculture
OrganizationoftheUnitedNationsconcerningthelegalor
developmentstatusofanycountry,territory,cityorareaorofits
authorities,orconcerningthedelimitationofitsfrontiersor
txrundaries.
ISBN92-5-105034-1
Allrightsreserved.Reproductionanddisseminationofmaterialinthis
informationproductforeducationalorothernon-commercialpurposesare
authorizedwithoutanypriorwrittenpermissionfromthecopyrightholders
providedthesourceisfullyacknowledged.Reproductionofmaterialinthis
informationproductforresaleorothercommercialpurposesisprohibited
withoutwrittenpermissionofthecopyrightholders.Applicationsforsuch
permissionshouldbeaddressedtotheChief,PublishingManagement
Service,InformationDivision,FAO,VialedelleTermediCaracalla,00100
Rome,[email protected]
©FAO2003
Copyrightedmaterial
PREFACE
Thisstudydrawsonthecontributionsofanumberofauthorsfromdiffering
legalsystemswhohavebroughttogetheradiverserangeofmaterialsand
sourcestobringtolifeanincreasinglyimportantaspectoffisherieslaw.The
immediateinspirationforthetimingofthisstudycanbefoundintworelated
sources. First, the paper presented by Blaise Kuemlangan on National
LegislativeOptionstoCombatlUU Fishing,whichwaspublishedinthe
pFrisohcienegdionrggsanoifztehdebEyxptehretGCoonvseurlntmateinotnoonfAIlulsetgraal,liUanrinepcoorotpeedraatnidonUnwrietghulFaAteOd
andheldinSydneyinMay2000,whichcanvassedthepossibilityofintroducing
administrativepenaltiesalongthelinesthathadbeenadoptedintheUnited
States.ThisoriginalideafounditsreflectionintheInternationalPlanofAction
wtohiPcrhevweanstDadeotpetreadndbyElFiAmiOnatine2Il0l0e1ga.l,ThUinsrepploarntecdallaenddinUtnerreagliualaftoerdStFaitsehsingt,o
considerthe"adoptionofacivilsanctionregmebasedonanadministrativepenalty
scheme"(paragraph21).
Sincethen,thesubjecthas received furtherimpetus from the European
CommissionwhichhassuggestedtomembersoftheEuropeanUnionthatthey
shouldconsiderthepossibilityofadoptingsuchaschemeofadministrative
penaltiesintheirnationallegislation.
ThestudyisintendedtoassistStatesinidentifyingthekindsofissuestheyneed
totakeintoaccountwhenadoptingsuchascheme.Itisexpectedthatitwillbe
especiallyvaluabletodevelopingStatesseekingtoadoptacosteffectivemeans
ofdealingwithlUUfishing,butwhichnonethelesswishtoensurethatbasic
individualrightsoftheaccusedareprotected.
Manyindividuals,towhomweoweourgratitude,contributedinonewayor
anothertocoordinatingandputtingthissmdytogether.However,special
thanksmustgotoBlaiseKuemlanganoftheDevelopmentLawServicewho
conceptualizedandinitiatedthestudy,providedtheinitialbackgroundmaterials
WainldlicaomorEddiensaotne,dftohremewrorFkAOofSetnhieorauItzh:ogarls.OfDfieceeprwahpporekciinadtliyonetfgioteedsthalesofintaol
product.
I.-awrenceChristy
Chief
DevelopmentLawService
JRPA-ZUA-ZKJY
C;-yrigfit^material
1
Contents
PRKFArF
iii
INTRODUCTION
1
L CONSTITUTIONALISSUESRELATEDTOTHE
USEOFADMINISTRATIVESANCTIONS 5
11.2 DPreolteegcattiioonnoafncdosnsetpiatruattiioonnalofripgohwtsers 59
2. UTNSEFIOSPHAERDIMEISNIIS^TWRSATIVESANCTIONS 13
2.1 Reviewoffisherieslegislation 13
2.1.1 LegisladonofEuropieancountries 13
2.1.2 DevelopmentinotherEuropeancountries 17
2.1.3 LegislarionofAfidcancountries 19
2.1.4 LegislationofAsiancountries 27
2.1.5 LegislarioninLatinAmericancountnes 3M0
22..11..67 LLee^^ssllaatdioonniinnNNoerwthZeAmaelraicnad..a.n..d..t.heSouthPacific 38
2.2 Mainfeaturescharacterizingadministrativesanctions 42
2.2.1 Executiveauthority- 42
2.2.2 T^’pesofadministrativesanctions 46
Z2.3 Rulesofprocedure 46
22.4 Out-of-cmirtsettlement 49
2.2.5 Whyuseadministrativesanctions 53
i STEPSTOFOLLOWFORTHEINTRODUCTIONOF
ADMINISTRATIVESANCTIONSINFISHERIESLAW 55
3.1 Scope 55
3.2 Executiveauthority 55
3.3 Types 55
ZA Processc.s .56
3.5 Assessmentofaclminisfrarivesanctions 57
3.6 Appeal/judicialreview 58
CONCLUSION 53
Copyrightedmaterial
INTRODUCTION
ItisthedutyofcoastalStatestoensurecompliancewiththeirfisherieslaws
andregulationsbyanypersonsorvesselsoperatingwithinthewatersunder
theirsos'ereigntyorjurisdictionandthatofflagStatestoensurethattheir
flagvesselsabidebyapplicableinternationalconservationandmanagement
measuresonthehighseas.Effectivelawenforcementiscriticaliffisheries
managementobjectivesaretobeachieved.Tothisend.Statesarerequiredto
establishappropriatemeasuresandprocedurestosanctionanyinfringement
oftheirfisherieslawsandregulations.Experienceshowsthatlawsand
regulations are poorly enforced in many parts ofthe world, thereby
underminingtheeffectivenessoffisheriesmanagement.Thus,onemay
questiontheefficiencyofcriminalenforcementsystemsandwonderifthe
useofadministrativesanctionsinfisherieslawmightconstituteaviable
enforcementalternative.Whilethedebateonthisissuehassofarbeen
mainlyconfinedtoafewcommonlawStates,particularlyintheUnited
StatesofAmerica,itseemsthatthereisagrowinginterestintheissue.
Section21oftheInternationalPlanofActiontoprevent,deterandeliminate
illegal,unreportedandunregulatedfishing(IPOA-IUU)'providesthatStates
havetheresponsibilities,interalia,to:"ensurethatsanctionsforlUUfishing
byvesselsand,tothegreatestextentpossible,nationalsunderitsjurisdiction
areofsufficientseveritytoeffectivelyprevent,deterandeliminatelUU
fishingandtodepriveoffendersofthebenefitsaccruingfromsuchfishing.
Thismayincludetheadoptionofacitnlsanctionregimebasedonanadministrative
penaltyscheme^.”Inarecentreportonthemonitoringoftheimplementation
ofthecommonfisherypolicy’,theCommissionoftheEuropeanUnion
observedthat"MemberStateswithanadministrativesanctioningsystemin
placeseemtohavereached,onaverage,resultsmoreproportionatetothe
offencescommitted."
' TheIPOA-IUUwasadoptedbyconsensusatthetwenty-fourthsessionofthe
CommitteeonFisheries(COFI)on2March2001andendorsedbythehundredand
twentiethsessionoftheFAOCouncilon23June2001.
^ Emphasisadded.
’ See:"ReportontheMonitoringoftheImplementationoftheCommonFisheries
Policy", Commission of the European Communities, (X)M(2001) 526 final,
28September2001,page19.
Copyrightedmaterial
2 Administratmsanctionsinfisherieslaw
I-'unhermore,thepreparaton,-documentfortherevisionoftheCommon
FisheriesPolic)'^emphasizestheneedto"explorewaysofimprovingthe
dissuasiveness ofpenalties for infringement, including "administrative"
penaltiessuchaslossoffishingquota,withdrawaloflicencesorrepayment
offinancialaidforvesselswhichinfringefisheriesregulations"^.
WTiatisunderstoodbyadministrativepenaltiesorsanctionsislikelytodiffer,
tosomeextent,accordingtowhetherthelegalsysteminwhichitistobe
appliedisofcommonorciv^illawtradition''.However,inbothlegalsystems,
administrativesanctionsarecharacterizedbytwomajorfeatures.First,the
powertoimposesuchsanctionsisvestedinanadministrativeagency(nota
judicialbody)beingpartoftheexecutivebranchofgovernmentoran
independentinstitution.Second,sanctionsareimposedoutsidethejudicial
process.Hence,forthepurposeofthispaper,theconceptofadministrative
sanctionsrefers tosanctionsimposedbyanadministrativeagencyoran
* See;"GreenPaperontheh'utureoftheC^ommonFisheriesPolicy",(Commissionof
theHuropean(Communities,(COM(2(X)l)135final,20March2(X)1.
5 Ihid,page31.
'• InFrance,whichisacountry'ofthecivillawtradition,thelegalnatureof
administrativesanctionshas.overtheyears,beendebatedatlengthinthedoctrineand
hasbeenabundantlycommentedincourtdecisionsbothbytheState(Counsel(highest
courtofadministrativelaw)andtheConstitutionalCounsel.Nofirmlyestablishedlegal
theory'hasyetbeenagreedupon.NotethattheStateCounselmentionedthat"lanotion
desanctionadministrativecompteparmilesmoinsassureesdudroitadministratif,alors
qu’cUeconditionneaujourdliuiI’applicationd’unregimejuridiquespecifique"(inthe
smdyon"lespouvoirsderadministrationdansIcdomaincdessanctions"documentation
franijaise1995).Whenappliedbyanexecutiveagencyoveritsagents,administrative
sanenonsarewidelyregardedasdisciplinarymeasurestoreprimandawrongdoing
committedbyanagent.Impositionofadministrativesanctionsagainstthepublicatlarge
(e.g.fortrafficviolations)ledtothedes'elopmentofanewtheoryenhancingthe
similantyofadministrativeandcriminalsanctionsandconcludingthatadministrative
sanctionsthatcouldnotbeassimilatedtoadisciplinarymeasurewereofacruninal
nature.Courtshaveinvokedtwochieflegalgroundstojustifytheimpositionof
administrativesanctionsbyanexecutiveagencyoranindependentinstimtion.F'irst,they
haveupheldthes'iewofthedoctrinethatexecutiveagencieshavealegitimateright,
derivedfromthenotionofhierarchicalpower,todisciplinetheiragentsforany
wrongdoing.Second,thepowerofexecutiveagenciestoimposeadministrativesanctions
toanyindividuals(asopposedtoaspecifiedcategoryorcategoriesofindividuals)is
basedonthenotionof"prerogatrieofpublicpower"inherenttotheexecutivefunction
oftheadministration,panicularlytothepowertomakeregulations.Byextension,this
reasoningappUcstoindependentmstitutionsresponsiblefora"missionofpublic
service".Notethattheconceptof"publicservice"isacentralissueofFrench
administrativelaw.
Copyrightedmaterial
Adminislra!ii>esanctionsinfisherieslaw 3
independentinstitutionforbreachofaregulationorruleestablishedbythat
agencyorinstitutionorenactedbyparliamentwithoutinterventionbya
court.Asaconsequence,theregulatorisnotrequiredtoproveamatterto
thecriminalstandard’andisnotconstrainedbycriminalcourtprocedures.It
thusprovidesforanalternativeenforcementmechanismthatcanbemore
cost-effective,timelyandpractical.
Administrativesanctionsmaytakedifferentforms.Theycanbeawarning,a
suspensionorrevocationofanauthorization,thelossofafishingquota,a
temporary'ineligibilitytoapplyforanauthorization,theconfiscationofgear,
equipment,vessel,orcatches,amonetary’p>enalty,theclosureoffishing
facilities,theexerciseofsummarypowers,ortherepaymentoffinancialaid
forvesselswhichinfringefisheriesregulations.
Useofadministrativesanctionsasanalternativ’eenforcementmechanismis
notanovelideaasithaslongbeenusedinotherareasofthelaw,notablyin
customs,immigration,finance,tradeandtrafficviolations.InPapuaNew
Guinea,forinstance,theCivilAdministrationDepartmentandtheMigration
OfficeoftheDepartmentofForeignAffairsandTradeareentitledtouse
administrative sanctions undertheAviationActandtheMigrationAct
respectively.Itisalsowidelyusedinenvironmentalandnamralresources
laws(e.g. forestry',water). InFranceandinmostfrancophoneAfrican
countries, compounding of t)ffences by the administrative authority
responsibleforforestry’isastandardprovisioninforestrylaw.TheUnited
States Federal Government makes extensive use of administrative
enforcementsystemsconferringuponadministrativeagenciestheauthority
toenforcestatutesandregulationsimposingadministrativ'esanctionsfor
violations.Fisheriesaswellasothereconomicsectorssubjecttofederal
management follow this model. F'or example, the Federal Drug
Administrationisauthorizedtoimposeadministrativesanctionsunderthe
Food,DrugandCosmeticAct.
Theobjectiveofthispaperistoreviewfisherieslegislationofcountriesof
boththecivilandcommonlawtraditiontodeterminetheextenttowhich
administrativeenforcementsystemsarecurrendyusedinfisherieslawandto
assesswhethersuchsystemsmayberegardedasaviablealternativeor
necessary’ complement to criminal law enforcement. To this end, this
’ Incriminalproceedings,itisgenerallythecasethattheaccused’sguiltmustbe
established«beyondareasonabledoubt»,whichmeansthatfactsprovenmust,byvirtue
oftheirprobativeforce,establishguilt.
Copyrightedmaterial
4 Administrativtsanctionsinfisherieslaw
document identifies and discusses the legal implications that use of
administrationsanctionsmayhave,h'urther,itdescribesthevarioustj'pesof
administrativesanctions,presentstheadvantageofusingsuchasystemand
identifiesthecommonfeaturesofexistingsystems.Finally,itattemptsto
provide some guidelines for the introduction of an administrative
enforcementsysteminfisherieslaw.
Copyrightedmaterial
Adminutratmsanctionsinfisherieslaw 5
1. CONSTITUTIONALISSUESRELATEDTOTHEUSE
OFADMINISTRATIVESANCTIONS
The examples ofboth the United States and h'rance,whichrepresent
countriesofcommonandcivillawtraditionrespectively,havebeenstudied
toidentifyandanalyzetheprincipalconstitutionalissuesraisedbytheuseof
administrativesanctionsbyadmirustrativeagencies,
1.1 Delegationandseparationofpowers
Thefirstobjectionthatwasraisedagainsttheuseofadministrativesanctions
byadministrativeagencieswasthatimpositionofsanctionsbytheexecutive
wascontrarytotheprincipleofseparationofpowers.Accordingtothis
concept,thegovernmentisdividedintothreebranches:thelegislative,which
isempoweredtomakelaws,theexecutive,whichisrequiredtoimplement
thelaws,andthejudicial,whichischargedwithinterpretingthelawsand
adjudicatingdisputesunderthelaws.Underthisconstitutionaldoctrine,one
branchisinprinciplenotpermittedtoencroachonthedomainorexercise
thepowersofanotherbranch. Representativedemocracies suchasthe
UnitedStatesandFrancehavegiventhisconceptaconstitutionalvalue*.
Contrarytotheideaconveyedbythisconcept,inrealit)'thereisnostrict
divisionofpowers.EventheoriginalwordingofboththeConstitutionsof
theUnitedStatesandFrance’blendsthepowersamongthethreebranches
ofgovernment.Forinstance,thePresidentoftheUnitedStatestakespartin
thelegislativefunctionbyproposinglawsandbyhavingavetopowerover
lawsenactedbyCongress'®.Similarly,theFrenchPrimeMinisterisentitled
toparticipateinthelegislativefunctionthroughthepropositionoflaws".It
isthereforeacceptedthattheprincipleofseparationofpowersreflectsmore
ageneralgovernmentalsystemthananintractableformoforganization.
Then,itisthefunctionoftheconstitutionalcourts'^todeterminethedegree
offlexibilitythatcanbeallowedintheapplicationofthisprinciple.
* Article16oftheDeclarationoftheHumanandCitizenRightsof26August1789
stipulatesthat"TouteSocietedanslaijuellclagaranticdcsDroitsn’cstpasassurcc,nila
separationdesPouvoirsdeterminee,n’apointdeConstitution(emphasisadded)."The
constitutionalvalueoftheserightshasbeenrecognizedbythepreambleoftheFrench
Constimtionof1958.
’ SeeU.S.Constitudonof1787andFrenchConstimtionof1958.
'•> SeeSection7oftheU.S.Constimtion.
" SecArticle39oftheFrenchConstimtionof1958.
" Forexample,theSupremeCourtintheUnitedStatesandtheConstimtionalCounsel
inFrance.
Copyrightedmaterial