Salmon affected by ISA virus. (Photo: M.Ortiz University of Maine)
CHILE
Thursday, August 28, 2014, 23:20 (GMT + 9)
The Supreme Court repealed the ruling of the Court of Appeals of Valparaiso, which had issued an injunction filed by the company Invertec Pesquera Mar de Chiloe (Invermar).
The National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service (SERNAPESCA) welcomed this decision, which re-validates their powers of control of diseases affecting aquaculture resources.
Besides, it confirms that the conditions required by the Infectious Anemia Virus (ISA) Programme to order the early harvest in Invermar’s centre Traiguén 1 were fully complied with.
National Service Director José Miguel Burgos considered the position of the Court was satisfactory.
"This unequivocally confirms the faculties our institution has to timely make the necessary decisions to protect the country's sanitary heritage as part of the aquaculture activities," he pointed out.
In addition, he recalled that the Court of Appeals of Valparaiso in a previous ruling clarified that there was no doubt that "SERNAPESCA is the technical entity specialized in controlling and monitoring animal health in the country, for which it is endowed with legal tools that enable it to enact measures that will benefit that health."
The Supreme Court had previously backed SERNAPESCA’s emergency statement in macrozone 3 by confirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Valparaiso rejecting the motion for protection filed by the fishing firm.
On 20 February, SERNAPESCA declared a health emergency for the entire macrozone No. 3, in central Chiloé, after detecting positive result for ISA virus in six cages of the centre Traiguén I.
On another occasion, an outbreak had been detected at the centre, so the harvest was set in three cages belonging to Invermar.
Invermar held that the decision adopted by SERNAPESCA in February, forcing the company to perform an early harvest or to remove all of the salmon specimens from the centre Traiguén 1 within 30 days, was "illegal and arbitrary". The company argued that "in its view the threat of ISA virus outbreak that justifies the determination would be controlled". In addition, it cited the existence of conflicting scientific reports between those responsible for the company and SERNAPESCA.
Related articles:
- Supreme Court ratifies rejection of Invermar’s appeal against SERNAPESCA
- ISA outbreak in Invermar salmon centre confirmed