The company argued that the notice “lacked the necessary detail for it to understand the infringement being alleged,” which breached the principle of natural justice.

At law, notices must include a summary of the facts upon which the allegation is based, so the person or company can properly respond. The tribunal agreed, stating the form “was not according to law since it lacked a summary of the infringement.”

Mare Blu also challenged the inspection findings, claiming it was difficult to establish the exact number of tuna in the pens, which could be affected by adverse weather.

Antonello Cappitta, director of Mare Blu Tuna Farm, testified: “When adverse weather hits, tuna can escape from pens, resulting in a lower amount… It is difficult to count the number of tuna due to the speed at which they swim into the empty pen, and sometimes they would move all at once.” He also noted that pens had been damaged in August 2023, which had been reported to the department.

During inspections, around 1,000 to 2,000 tuna are transferred at a time, filmed by conventional and sophisticated cameras.

However, the tribunal noted that the footage relied on by the department was not presented, and that no official explained how the fine was calculated. Officials themselves admitted that counts may be inaccurate due to fish movement and visibility issues.

The tribunal highlighted that while €10,000 was far from the maximum fine allowed by law, it was neither close to the minimum.

It suggested that if substantial discrepancies arise, counts should be repeated by a different official for comparison.

The tribunal ultimately ruled the process leading to the fine was “defective” and upheld Mare Blu Tuna Farm Ltd’s appeal, revoking the decision.

Magistrate Charmaine Galea presided over the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Do you think this is high enough of a fine?