Decision ID: 001941

In October 2006 the 1992 Fund Executive Committee noted that in June 2006 the Court of Appeal in Rennes had rendered a judgement in respect of a claim for loss of revenue by a wholesale business operating from various locations in Brittany supplying bottled drinks to cafes, hotels and campsites (but not directly to tourists). It was recalled that the Fund had rejected the claim on the grounds that it was ‘second degree’ tourism claim and that the Commercial Court in Vannes had in its judgement upheld the Fund’s position, stating that the claimant had failed to show that the reduced turnover was due to the pollution arising from the incident. The Committee noted that the Court of Appeal, whilst stating that although the Fund’s admissibility criteria were not binding on national courts the Court could use them as a source of inspiration, nevertheless rejected the appeal on the grounds that many of the claimant’s clients, such as local authorities,military barracks and hospitals, had not been affected by the incident and that the losses allegedly suffered by the claimant could not be considered with certainty as a direct consequence of the pollution, but could have resulted from other factors such as the weather conditions, location and the profitability of the local market.