Decision ID: 002074
In June 2007 the 1992 Fund Executive Committee noted that in April 2007 the Commercial Court in Quimper had rendered a judgement in respect of a claim by a fish wholesaler for alleged losses in 2000, arguing that the pollution had spoiled the image of the quality of products sold by the claimant. It was noted that the Fund had rejected the claim on the grounds that the claimant had not proved any loss and there was no link of causation between the alleged loss and the contamination, since the claimants business was located outside the affected area, there was no dependence on the affected resources and there were alternative sources of supply. It was noted that the Court had considered previous judgements on similar cases rendered by an appeal court that had stated that it was for national courts to interpret the concept of ‘pollution damage’ in the 1992 Conventions. It was noted that the Court had considered that even if the claimant’s business was not strictly located in the area affected by the pollution, an official study had indicated that there had been a market disaffection towards sea produce, and therefore a loss of income in the related sector. It was noted, however, that the Court had concluded that the claimant had not proved any losses and had for that reason rejected the claim.