Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 40kWORD 9k
26 May 2020
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 138
Peter van Dalen (PPE), Jan Huitema (Renew), Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR), Annie Schreijer-Pierik (PPE)
 Answer in writing 
 Subject: Pulse fishing

1. Has the Commission taken note of the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) based on the latest ICES report (2:37) on pulse fishing? If so, what is the Commission's view of this scientific research report?

2. The Commission rightly emphasises at all times the importance of scientific evidence before measures are announced. The ICES report shows that pulse fishing offers obvious advantages over beam trawling, both ecologically and economically. The ban on pulse fishing is therefore wrong and unwarranted. When will the Commission propose an amendment to the technical measures regulation so as to end that ban?

3. Does the Commission agree that the decision to ban pulse fishing was unlawful and premature, given that no definitive scientific study on pulse fishing was available when the decision was taken?


Original language of question: NL
Last updated: 11 June 2020Legal notice - Privacy policy