The European Court of Justice published the sentence stated on 29th October 2009 on the legal argument concerning the noncompliance of the Italian Republic to provide appropriate measures for the control and surveillance of fishing activities, in particular with regard to the prohibited retention on board and use of drift nets.

Drift-nets are several kilometers in length and are non-selective fishing gear. These fishing nets are highly dangerous for the pelagic fauna and are cause of death of numerous marine protected species such as whales, dolphins, sea turtles, mantas and sea birds. They are also cause of depletion of the target species stocks, the Mediterranean tuna and sword fish.

Together with several charges, the appeal brought on from the Commission of the European Communities was finally received.  The Italian system of controls and penalties was considered wholly inadequate for the purposes of securing compliance with the obligations imposed by the moratorium of 1989 of the United Nations, the European prohibition of 1992 and the following international and national laws on the issue.

Investigations carried out by the Commission ascertained that fishing vessels infringing the Community provisions were backed up by a regime of considerable impunity. This appeared to be due to the absence of satellite-tracking devices on a significant number of fishing vessels and to a tardy legislation (law n° 101/2008) before which the Italian legislation governing penalties prohibited only the use or attempted use of drift-nets but not their simple retention on board. Former to this latter law, the confiscated nets would be given into custody to the same fishermen responsible of the infringement, who, eventually, had already profited by a grant-in-aid for the restructuring of their fishing gear. The Commission reported that the Italian authorities do not consider as drift-nets some fishing nets which use is prohibited by European regulations: the “ferrettare” is a handy home-bred creation in order to rename the prohibited “spadare”. In addiction, the Commission underlined the reticence of the competent authorities which, in order to avoid social pressure, do not effectively pursue and penalize the infringement of the prohibition on the use of drift-nets when it actually occurs. The number and range of penalties imposed was found to be derisory and inadequate to obtain a dissuasive effect.