Convictions since the Prestige

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

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.