Decision ID: 001933

In October 2006 the 1992 Fund Executive Committee noted that in June 2006 the Commercial Court in Saintes had rendered a judgement in respect of a claim by a manufacturer of fishing equipment, which the Committee had earlier decided should be rejected on the grounds that there was not a reasonable degree of proximity between the alleged losses and the contamination. It was noted that the Court, having stated that the Fund’s admissibility criteria were not binding in national Courts, had held that the claim satisfied the Fund’s criteria since the great majority of the claimant’s clients were based in the affected area, that the sale of fishing nets represented a substantial part of his turnover, that the claimant did not have other sources of supply or business opportunities, that the claimant’s business formed an integral part of the economic activity of the affected area and that the claimant had only included in its claim the activities that had a direct geographical link with the area affected by the spill. It was further noted that the Court had ordered the Fund to compensate the claimant. The Committee decided that the Fund should not appeal against the judgement, since although the Court had taken a position different to that of the Fund, it had nevertheless reached its decision on the basis of the Fund’s admissibility criteria and had made a reasonable evaluation of the evidence provided by the claimant.