Decision ID: 003543

In March 2009 the 1992 Fund Executive Committee noted that in October 2008 the Court of Appeal in Paris had rendered a judgement in respect of two claims for a reduction in sales by an oyster grower in Carantec in Brittany, 50 km north of Brest, which had been rejected by the 1992 Fund on the grounds that the claimant’s business was located well outside the area affected by the oil spill arising from the incident and that there was no link of causation between the alleged losses and the incident. It was noted that the Commercial Court in Paris, whilst stating that national courts were competent to interpret the notion of damage in the 1992 Conventions, had nevertheless rejected the claims on the grounds that either the alleged losses did not exist or had not been proven and that there was no evidence of a direct or indirect link to the incident. The Committee noted that the Court of Appeal had rejected the claims after considering that the claimant had neither proven the existence of the alleged losses nor a sufficient link of causation between the alleged losses and the pollution caused by the Erika incident.

Date: 01.03.2009
Categories: Legal actions, Pure economic loss (fisheries and mariculture)
Subjects: Judgements in respect of claims for pure economic loss, Admissibility criteria, Link of causation between the loss and the contamination, Loss of income due to loss of confidence of buyers/consumers of marine products, Loss of income from mariculture due to business interruption as a result of oil pollution