Administrative sanctions in fisheries law PDF
Preview Administrative sanctions in fisheries law
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
The list of books you might like
