Rum Antonio & Umberto SNC (RAU) claimed through an extraordinary appeal by recourse to the President of the Republic of Italy in respect of a temporary ban of fishing activities adopted by the Ministry of Agricultural, Food, and Forestry Policies (the Ministry).

In July 2014, the Ministry adopted a decree concerning the temporary mandatory cessation of fishing activities between 15 September 2014-15 October 2014.

RAU challenged the Ministry's decision. In its view, its fishing activities in question took place in international waters, rather than in the territorial waters of Italy under the competence of the Region of Sardinia, which were subject to the temporary compulsory ban on fishing.

In its previous interlocutory advice, the Judges asked the Ministry to provide more details as to the fishing activities performed by RAU and as to the notion of 'international waters' used by the appellant to describe the geographical scope of its fishing activities. The Judges also asked if references to 'international waters' had been made in the appeal or in the Ministry's report in order to identify waters not included in the definition of territorial sea pursuant to art 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), or if these references concerned the area beyond the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf, defined as the high seas by arts 86 ff of UNCLOS.

In January 2020, the Ministry pointed out that if the appellant was referring to 'international waters' as the high seas (ie, the waters beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) from the coast of the State), RAU would have been performing fishing activities well beyond the maximum distance allowed for its navigation. Indeed, pursuant to Italian domestic law, RAU's boats could only engage in coastal navigation and near-coastal fishing. The Ministry also emphasised that the notion of 'near-coastal fishing' implied fishing activities occurring up to 40 nm from the coast or less, depending on the equipment on board the ship, and that in the case under examination the maximum distance had been fixed at 20 nm.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

The Court excludes the possibility that RAU's fishing activities took place on the high seas. Rather, the relevant maritime area in which RAU's fishing was conducted was between 12-20 nm from the coast (the limit of the territorial waters and the maximum distance allowed for navigation by RAU's fishing license, respectively). The Court thus agreed with the rejection of RAU's appeal against the fishing ban.