Convictions since the Prestige
The Erika and the Prestige incidents caused France to reinforce its repression policy on illicit oil discharge. The increasingly severe sanctions have led to a marked decrease in the number of cases reported
The Prestige incident brought renewed interest to the issue of legislation. The repression policy embarked upon after the Erika disaster was reinforced through a new organisational structure of decentralised courts and larger control zones (French law 2003-346 dated 15 April 2003).
The effect of the decentralisation of jurisdictions
The designation of courts for the coast with a jurisdiction over one or more courts of appeal is an important step. By choosing Marseille, Brest and Le Havre as courts for the exclusive economic zone, the law brought the magistrates closer to the Maritime Prefects. The coastal judges have taken advantage of their close contact with the State authorities to develop a more active repressive policy and do not hesitate to reroute vessels.
The
upshot of rerouting is the release of vessels on bail, guaranteeing
the payment of fines in the event of a conviction, and is in line
with the State's attitude in favour of improving the effectiveness
of fines.
 |
 |
More and more environmental protection associations claim damages and obtain compensation, showing that environmental damage is being allocated more recognition. However this compensation is likely to remain limited by taking into account the real impact of the spill in question.
Judgements and cases since the Prestige spill
| Ship name | Type | Flag | Capitain | Date | Jurisdiction | Judgement | Conviction or down payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIA | ore carrier | Greek | Greek | 26/01/2000 | EEZ* Brest high court | 05/11/2003 | 15 000 Euros |
| VOLTAIRE | container ship | French | German | 22/05/2003 | EEZ* Brest high court CA Rennes | 18/11/2003 | 100
000 € 1st instance 200 000€ on appeal |
| DOBRUDJA | cargo ship | Bulgarian | Bulgarian | 30/07/2003 | EEZ* Brest high court Rennes court of appeal | 16/12/2003 | 200
000€ confirmed on appeal on 01/05 |
| SANTA MARIA | cargo ship | German | 08/04/2003 | EEZ* Paris high court Paris court of appeal | 18/02/2004 | 200
000€ confirmed on appeal on 21/12/04 |
|
| NICHOLAS M | ore carrier | St Vincent & Grenadines | Egyptian | 22/12/2003 | EEZ* Brest high court | 18/05/2004 | 150 000 Euros |
| NOVA HOLLANDIA | cargo ship | Maltese | Russian | 21/01/2004 | EEZ* Brest high court | 15/06/2004 | discharge/appeal
prosecutor + vigipol |
| PONTOKRASTORAS | cargo ship | Cypriot | Romanian | 21/12/2003 | EEZ* Brest high court | 29/06/2004 | 350 000 Euros |
| ARROYOFRIO DOS | cargo ship | Portuguese | Croatian | 02/03/2004 | EEZ* Brest high court | 20/07/2004 | 200 000 Euros |
| CIMIL | container ship | Turkish | Turkish | 29/01/2004 | EPZ**Marseille high court | 06/09/2004 | 300 000 Euros |
| KHALED IBN AL WALEED | container ship | United Arab Emirates | Pakistani | 11/02/2004 | territoral waters Marseille high court | 06/09/2004 | 500
000 Euros + 1 year's suspended sentence |
| TK-VENICE | cargo ship | Maltese | Turkish | 06/05/2004 | EEZ* Le Havre high court | 04/10/2004 | 70 000 Euros |
| MSC NiICOLE | container ship | Swiss | Italian | 13/08/2001 | EEZ* Brest high court | 05/10/2004 | 250 000 Euros |
| MORITZ SCHULTE | gas carrier | Man | Polish | 01/06/2004 | EEZ* Brest high court | 12/10/2004 | 230 000 Euros |
| VANCOUVER SPIRIT | tanker | Bahamian | German | 16/07/2001 | EEZ* Brest high court | 19/10/2004 | 100 000 Euros |
| CONCORDIA 1 | oil tanker | Maltese | Greek | 05/09/2000 | EEZ* Brest high court | 26/10/2004 | 140 000 Euros |
| GAZ VENEZIA | gas carrier | Panamian | Greek? | 04/06/2004 | EEZ* Brest high court | 09/11/2004 | 250 000 Euros |
| PANAREA PRIMO | bulk carrier | Italian | Italian | 06/03/2004 | territoral waters Marseille high court | 15/11/2004 | 70 000 Euros |
| MEGA EXPRESS | ferry | Italian | Italian | 12/05/2004 | EPZ**Marseille high court | report mars2005 | 500 000 € down payment |
| NANDO | oil tanker | Italian | Italian | 12/05/2004 | EPZ**Marseille high court | 29/11/2004 | 400
000 Euros on 10/01/05 |
Cases which appeared in the press
*
EEZ = exclusive economic zone
** EPZ = environmental protection zone
Ship-owners began to become aware of the risk that was involved in the development of an effective repressive policy. As they were the party responsible for paying the majority of the fine, they ensured a defence worthy of the financial stakes involved, and attempted to contest the testimony of witnesses who carried out aerial observation. Their analysis of the situation aimed at reducing the incidents to a simple question of separating equipment or disputing the integrity of the observations.
More and more appeals began to be made to avoid paying fines which were no longer purely symbolic. Thus the initial fines imposed were then confirmed or reinforced on appeal (see the VOLTAIRE case above). Decisions based on the visibility of oil and photographic evidence, as initiated by the TRAQUAIR case, were further confirmed by Rennes' court of appeal.
Evidence
of damage to the environment is a new issue in the debate, although
judges now take videos into consideration as evidence, as in the
MED-RIVA and the DOBRUDJA cases.
The possibility of resorting to Paris' high court in the event
of a major spill, as allowed for in the Perben II law, does not
appear to apply to regular illicit discharge, however it can apply
in the case of particularly significant amounts of discharge with
considerable financial implications involving several States.
Last update: December 2008