Decision ID: 001839

In March 2006 the 1992 Fund Executive Committee noted that in October 2005 the Commercial Court in Rennes had rendered a judgement in respect of a claim by a salt producer’s union relating to advance payments made by the union to 51 members for the costs of restoration of salt marshes in 2001, which had allegedly become necessary as a result of the incident. It was noted that whilst the union had argued that the incident had caused the proliferation of harmful animals and plants, a professor at the Laboratory of Marine Biology in Nantes had concluded that this proliferation had not been caused by the incident, but by the exceptionally heavy rainfall between the harvesting seasons of 2000 and 2001, as a result of which the Fund had rejected the claim. It was noted that the Court had held that, in the light of expert’s report, the claimant had not established a sufficient link of causation between the alleged loss and the pollution resulting from the incident and rejected the claim.

Categories: Environmental damage, Legal actions
Subjects: Admissibility criteria, Claims for costs of reinstatement measures, Link of causation, Judgements in respect of claims for environmental damage