Decision ID: 002013
In March 2007 the 1992 Fund Executive Committee noted that in February 2007 the Court of Appeal in Rennes had rendered a judgement in respect of a claim for loss of income by a student who, contrary to what had been the case in 1998 and 1999, had not been employed in the summer at a camping site as a kitchen assistant. It was recalled that the Fund had rejected the claim on the grounds that there was not a sufficient link of causation between the alleged loss and the pollution, that the claimant had taken legal action in the Commercial Court in Rennes, and that the Court had accepted the claim and had ordered the shipowner/insurer and the 1992 Fund to pay compensation to the claimant. The Committee also recalled that since the claim had given rise to a question of principle, it had instructed the Director to appeal against the judgement. It was noted that the Court of Appeal had reversed the Court of first instance’s judgement and had rejected the claim. It was noted that the Court had stated inter alia that it was for national courts to decide the interpretation of the term ‘pollution damage’, but that in doing so they should take into account the terms of the 1992 Conventions, which by virtue of the French Constitution had a higher value than internal law. It was further noted that the Court had held that in this case the link of causation had not been proved, since the student, who was employed in August 2000, had not shown that the reason he had not been employed in July 2000 was a consequence of the reduction in tourism resulting form the Erika incident and had not provided evidence that he had attempted to obtain employment elsewhere.