A judge in Río Grande ordered 19 companies to stop fishing in Malvinas waters without Argentine permission

The federal courts of Río Grande ordered twelve fishing companies domiciled in Spain and seven Argentine-British islander joint ventures to refrain from fishing in Argentine waters without authorization from the national authority, and the order expressly includes the sea surrounding the Malvinas Islands. Judge Mariel Borruto issued the precautionary measure on November 6, in case file FCR 16446/2026, brought by the Agustina Lerena Foundation. The injunction was signed last Friday and covers both the territorial sea and the Exclusive Economic Zone, including the waters surrounding the Malvinas Islands. It is provisional, does not extend to the high seas, and for now leaves out banks, shipyards, and insurers. The companies will be notified through the Foreign Ministry. "This is an event of absolute significance," said expert Daniel Guzmán. The ruling does not declare anyone guilty: the judge herself clarifies that it is not a definitive ruling on the defendants' liability, but it establishes a concrete prohibition and, above all, a particular legal interpretation of the dispute: for the judge, what is fished around the islands is not a separate matter, but part of the same ecosystem that Argentina administers. In this sense, until they obtain a permit from the enforcement authority of the Federal Fisheries Law, the companies covered by the order must refrain, directly or through vessels they own, operate, charter, or manage, from capturing or extracting marine living resources with any fishing gear; processing on board the catches obtained in those waters; transshipping or unloading those catches; and starting new fishing trips or seasons, or adding new vessels for those activities. Port area of the Malvinas Islands JUAN IGNACIO RONCORONI - AFP The Spanish companies are based in Vigo, Marín, Cangas, and Moaña, in Galicia. The joint ventures are listed in the ruling with corporate entities domiciled in Puerto Argentino-Stanley, such as South Atlantic Squid, Petrel Fishing Company, and Golden Touza. In addition, they must report under oath, within ten court days of being notified, which vessels operate in those waters, under what licenses, how much they have caught since 2023, what discards they record, at which ports they unload, and what their corporate structure is. They must also preserve all documentation: fishing logs, diaries, and satellite records. When asked about the measure, Guzmán of the Agenda Malvinas portal said that "it is of transcendental importance, aimed at companies operating in waters surrounding Malvinas whose records have been published; it is their own information that serves as evidence. It has the significance of the documentation of those who are stealing." The argument: one and the same sea The judge starts from a legal premise: the First Transitional Provision of the Constitution ratifies Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands and their maritime spaces. Therefore, she maintains, the fact that the companies are foreign or act under licenses from the island administration "does not undermine (weaken) the full force of Argentine law." The Fisheries Law requires an Argentine permit to fish in those waters. In a clarification that is political as well as technical, the ruling warns that when official reports speak of "waters in dispute" or the "EEZ disputed with the United Kingdom," those expressions do not alter the legal status of those waters. To establish the plausibility of the claim, the judge relied on reports and data from the National Institute of Fisheries Research (INIDEP). Among them: that since 1989, the island administration has granted fishing licenses that yield it average revenues of more than 20 million pounds per year, with some 230 licenses per year since 2013. The main recipients, according to INIDEP, are Spain, Great Britain with port of registry in the islands, South Korea, and Taiwan. Marcelo Kohen argues before the Tribunal of the Sea in Argentina's claim against oil exploitation in the Malvinas Islands Catches by Spanish-flagged vessels in that sector fell from 59,001 tons in 2013 to 34,036 in 2017. Those of British vessels ported in the islands were 60,474 tons in 2013 and 63,859 in 2017. Catches of common hake in that sector rose from 14,681 tons in 2014 to 62,829 in 2022. Finally, it is noted that, in the 2026 squid season, INIDEP estimated 110 foreign jiggers operating in the exclusive economic zone, compared with 84 Argentine-flagged jiggers. In 2025 there were up to 108 foreign vessels per week. The court stressed another point: Argentina receives no fishing logs or catch declarations from that activity, does not embark observers, and does not inspect. INIDEP must estimate what is being fished based on satellite images and the yields of Argentine vessels. That lack of data, the judge reasoned, makes it impossible to set realistic maximum catches and quotas, and weakens the fishing bans that the national fleet does comply with. There is also an argument of timing. Squid is a species "whose population abundance renews itself entirely each year," according to INIDEP: what is extracted in one season reduces the breeding stock that should ensure the next. For the judge, waiting for a final ruling would mean that fishing continues season after season on the same populations. Class action for environmental damage The Agustina Lerena Foundation, chaired by César Lerena, brought a class action for environmental damage. Its counsel is constitutional lawyer Eduardo Barcesat. The foundation seeks remediation of the damage and compensation that the foundation estimates at US$26,465 million for catches between 1989 and 2025. That amount is an estimate by the plaintiff party. The judge had recognized the court's jurisdiction and the foundation's standing on November 2. The federal prosecutor had ruled in favor of the admissibility of the action and of the injunction. The measure is provisional: when the defendants appear, the judge must review it, and may maintain, expand, modify, or lift it. Notification to the companies, including those based abroad, is the responsibility of the foundation, which must do so by the appropriate means in each case. The practical effectiveness of the order against foreign companies will depend on those notifications and on the applicable legal mechanisms, regional press warned. The ruling includes an element that may carry weight later on: the burden of proof. Since the data on vessels, licenses, and catches are in the hands of the same companies, the judge ordered that if any of them denies fishing in those waters or invokes an Argentine permit, it must support that claim with documents. By Sol AgustiType of work:News Original