Decision ID: 001226
In June 2001 the 1992 Fund Executive Committee reconsidered a claim by a company producing oysters at a farm located 100 km outside the affected area for losses allegedly caused by a reduction in sales in the affected area due to market resistance as a result of the incident. The Committee recalled that it had deferred making a decision on the claim’s admissibility pending further information about the business. It was noted that the claimant purchased oyster seed from a location within the affected area, that these were then taken to a location outside the affected area for growing to market size before being taken back to a location in the affected area where they were finally processed and packaged with a label identifying the place of origin of the product as within the affected area. The Committee agreed that the criterion of geographic proximity was fulfilled and that the claimant’s business formed an integral part of the economic activity within the affected area. The Committee concluded that there was a reasonable degree of proximity between the contamination and any loss suffered by the claimant and decided that the claim was admissible in principle.