SIA North Star Ltd v. Public Prosecuting Authority (Norwegian Snow Crab Case)

In 2017, a Latvian shipping company and the Russian captain of one of the company’s vessels (“the defendants” and “the appellants”) were convicted by the Finnmark District Court of fishing for snow crabs on the Norwegian continental shelf without a valid permit. The vessel had a European Union permit granted by the Latvian authorities, but no permit from the Norwegian authorities. According to the Norwegian Snow Crab Regulations, fishing for snow crabs was prohibited on the continental shelf other than with a special permit. The District Court’s decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which concluded that, as, in its view, the snow crab was a sedentary species under Article 77(4) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”),3 it was a natural resource over which Norway exercised sovereign rights. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. They argued that, on the proper interpretation of Article 77(4) of UNCLOS, the snow crab was not a sedentary species and, therefore, Norway could not lawfully regulate the snow crab fisheries as it had done. The appellants also argued that, in any event, the Norwegian Snow Crab Regulations contravened the principle of equal rights under the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty,4 as only Norwegian nationals could apply for a permit for crab fishing. The public prosecutor5 reiterated that the snow crab was a sedentary species and that, in any event, the fishing had taken place in the Spitsbergen Fisheries Protection Zone, where, under the Spitsbergen Treaty, Norway had an exclusive right to exploit and regulate all species. According to the public prosecutor, fishing for snow crabs without a permit from the Norwegian authorities was punishable under the Snow Crab Regulations irrespective of whether the latter violated the equal treatment requirement under the Spitsbergen Treaty.