The Supreme Court declared the Fishing Act partly unconstitutional

The Supreme Court judgment confirms that an undertaking’s fundamental rights must not be restricted automatically in a situation where it has not had a real opportunity to defend itself in the proceedings. NAMM attorneys Kristiina Urb-Semjonov and Küllike Namm successfully represented a client before the Supreme Court in a dispute concerning the constitutional review of the Fishing Act.

The dispute arose after the Agriculture and Food Board reduced the fishing opportunities of a fishing permit holder for two years. The reason was not a violation committed by the permit holder itself, but the fact that two fishermen who had fished under its fishing permit had been punished in misdemeanour proceedings. The fishing permit holder itself was not involved in those misdemeanour proceedings and had no opportunity to present its position, evidence or objections.

In its judgment of 2 June 2025 in case no. 5-25-1/15, the Supreme Court found that the situation interfered very intensely with the rights of the permit holder. In substance, the administrative authority had an automatic basis for reducing the undertaking’s fishing opportunities, even though the undertaking had not had an effective opportunity in the earlier proceedings to defend its rights or challenge the circumstances on which the later decision was based.

The Supreme Court declared § 56 subsections 3 and 4 of the Fishing Act unconstitutional and invalid insofar as they provided for the reduction of fishing opportunities on the grounds that a person other than the person holding the fishing permit had been punished for violations set out in § 71¹ subsection 1 of the Fishing Act.

The judgment is important for undertakings and fishing permit holders, but also more broadly for all situations where the state makes a decision that significantly restricts a person’s rights on the basis of another person’s violation. The Supreme Court emphasised that a person or undertaking must have a real and effective opportunity to defend its rights, especially where the decision has a direct impact on its economic activity. The judgment can be accessed here.