The LuxLeaks affair centered on Luxembourg documents that exposed how a number of multinational corporations used the country’s permissive tax and legal framework to minimize their tax bills. The revelations surged forward in 2014 when Jean-Claude Juncker, who had previously led Luxembourg’s finance ministry, stepped into a prominent European role. The European Commission then shifted toward greater transparency, deciding to publish the agendas of directors general and cabinet members so the public could see who met with whom and about what.
As a result, it became possible to see that Margrethe Vestager, the Vice President and Competition Commissioner, held meetings with Google on multiple occasions in March and with Microsoft on several occasions in the same year. Similarly, Janusz Wojciechowski, the Agriculture Commissioner, engaged with more than one corporate group to discuss the withdrawal of grain from Ukraine following the invasion. Meetings with Fisheries commissioners likewise appeared on schedules, though the record of those sessions suggested limited discussion about enforcement measures that could affect a large fleet of Galician fishing vessels.
Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius and Deputy Commissioner Charlina Vitcheva were among the officials involved. Beyond these figures, numerous staff members and team affiliates conducted meetings with industry groups, non-governmental organizations, and business associations. The agenda showed only a single entry about a proposal to restrict bottom fishing across substantial areas of EU waters, and on July 19, Sinkevicius met privately with two team members to discuss related matters.
The stated purpose for the meetings was described as an exchange of views on the next Action Plan to safeguard fisheries resources and marine ecosystems, along with the Commission’s implementing actions on sensitive marine ecosystems and the European eel situation. The meetings were arranged at the behest of several NGOs, and it is with these organizations that the topic of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VME) gained prominence, guiding a rule that legal measures should reflect input from industry and public administrations alike.
The NGOs comprising this environment include Oceana, the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, WWF European Policy Programme, Fiskesekretariatet, Stichting BirdLife Europe, The Pew Charitable Trusts, ClientEarth AISBL, Seas At Risk, and Our Fish. One point of contention revolved around the response by Vitcheva, who visited Galicia in the summer and did not appear on the official agenda, yet observed industry debates firsthand. ARVI’s Edelmiro Ulloa recalled that meetings with Vitcheva resulted in straightforward assertions from the industry that were later described as unsatisfactory by the official side.
The ICES report cited by the Fisheries Commission to justify its decision has not yet been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The document reportedly acknowledges that the exact economic impact of the proposed measures remains unknown and lacks robust socioeconomic references. It notes that data on VMEs are incomplete and suggests that observer training could improve the record. The commission pledged to review VME closures annually as new information becomes available, while also signaling that preferences might be hard to determine given the uncertain socioeconomic effects. Some fishermen operate in traditional zones with limited effort, but even small changes can translate into meaningful consequences for those communities.
In a written reply dated mid-month, Sinkevicius stated that the veto on bottom fishing aimed to minimize socioeconomic impact. The closures cover vast areas and affect vessels equipped with bottom gear such as trawlers, dredgers, bottom gillnets, longlines, pots, and traps. It remained unclear whether any gear that touches the seafloor but does not reach depths beyond 400 meters would be restricted. The measure could potentially subjugate roughly 900 Galician artisanal fishing boats dependent on traditional methods.