Decision ID: 003241

In October 2004 the 1992 Fund Executive Committee noted that that in May 2004 the Court of Appeal in Rennes had rendered a judgement in respect of a claim for loss of income by a claimant whose property in the affected area was let to other businesses (but not directly to tourists). It was recalled that the Fund had rejected the claim on the grounds that it was a second degree (indirect) loss and that the claimant had not proven that he had suffered a loss. It was also recalled that the Commercial Court in Lorient had stated that it was not bound by the Fund’s admissibility criteria, that under French law a claim was admissible if the loss was direct and certain, provided there was a sufficient link of causation between the event and the damage. The Committee noted that the Court had held that the Erika incident was the sole cause of the pollution and its economic consequences, that a letter from an estate agent showed that a contract for the lease of the property had been cancelled due to the incident and had therefore ordered the shipowner/insurer and the 1992 Fund to pay compensation for loss of rental income. The Executive Committee recalled that it had decided that, in view of the importance of the issue for the proper functioning of the compensation regime based on 1992 Conventions, the Fund should pursue an appeal against the judgement. It was noted that the Court of Appeal in Rennes had not applied the Funds’ admissibility criteria which were not binding on national courts, but had nevertheless held that the claimant had not shown that there was a sufficient link of causation between the event in question and the damage, nor had the claimant proved that any damage existeda loss had been incurred, and had rejected the claim.