French fishermen fall foul of strawberry law

The European Commission's speedy intervention in this week's blockade of ports by French fishermen protesting against high fuel prices reflects the institution's determination to prevent a recurrence of the mayhem that traditionally accompanies French strike action.

European Union internal market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein sent a letter formally warning the French government that it is legally obliged to keep cross-border trade routes open on Tuesday, the day before the blockade of ports by French fishermen began. This is in stark contrast to previous occasions over the last ten years, when strike action by French farmers, fishermen or transport workers has virtually suspended cross-border trade with France without significant intervention from the Commission.

A particular low point was reached in December 1996, when simultaneous pay disputes with French truckers and railway workers paralysed the country for a week, with severe repercussions for international trade and transport. Although the Commission, along with other European countries, put pressure on Paris to resolve the disputes as speedily as possible, the French government's well-founded fear of triggering serious civil disturbances prevented it from removing road blockades by force.

The treaties founding the EU impose an obligation on national governments to remove obstacles to the free movement of people, goods and services within the 15-member bloc, but it is clear that their authors only had regulatory obstacles in mind. It wasn't until 1998 that the Commission moved to make it clear that this obligation extends also to physical obstacles of the kind put in place by demonstrators and strikers.

Unsurprisingly, it was action by French protestors that brought matters to a head. The issue was forced that year by a particularly violent confrontation in southern France between local fruit farmers and truckers importing cheaper fruit and vegetables from Spain.

These annual showdowns used to take place every spring, when fruit and vegetables grown in Spain's warmer climate became available some weeks ahead of France's domestic crop. Usually, French farmers would be satisfied with the destruction of a a few truckloads of Spanish fruit, but in 1998 their protests went much further, extending even to arson attacks on supermarkets that dared to stock Spanish imports. At the time, there were widespread allegations of collusion by the French police, many of whom were said to be openly sympathetic to the aims of the protestors.

Prompted by furious complaints from then Spanish Agriculture Mminister Loyola de Palacio, now serving as European Transport Commissioner, the Commission hurriedly drafted legislation explicitly spelling out the obligations of countries where protests disrupt the free flow of cross-border trade. Dubbed the strawberry law, the legislation made it clear that countries which fail to intervene in order to keep cross-border trade routes open can be hauled before the European Court of Justice. The ECJ in turn can impose fines totalling millions of euros for every day that border crossings remain closed to goods or people.

No country has ever yet been fined under the strawberry law, but it has given the Commission a clear mandate to act when the free flow of goods is disrupted by strike action. France was threatened with prosecution over its failure to contain its strawberry warriors in 1998, and had another close escape in February this year, when truckers blocked roads across France in protest against a cut in overtime payments following the introduction of the 35-hour working week.

The strawberry wars have quietened down in recent years, and this week's port blockade was quickly resolved, albeit after the French government caved in to most of the protestors' demands. However, with its strong tradition of street protests by special interest groups, France remains the firm favourite to be the first EU member state to face prosecution under the strawberry law.