- Title: FRANCE: Total to blame for oil spill
- Date: 31st March 2010
- Summary: BRITTANY, FRANCE (ORIGINALLY 4:3) (FILE - 1999) (REUTERS) VARIOUS OF OIL ON GROUND AT COAST LINE OIL ON SURFACE OF OCEAN CLEAN UP CREWS SHOVELLING OIL FROM BEACH OIL ON BEACH, CLEAN UP CREW PICKING UP DEAD ANIMALS BIRD CLEAN UP CREWS PICKING UP MORE DEAD BIRDS
- Embargoed: 15th April 2010 13:00
- Keywords:
- Location: France
- Country: France
- Topics: Environment / Natural World,Industry
- Reuters ID: LVA16GXHXFU665RQAFJQ8IY1RC18
- Story Text: A French appeals court confirms the responsibility of Total for a disastrous oil spill in 1999. The court also upheld the legal notion that sees harm to the environment as a form of damage for which polluters must pay compensation.
A French court on Tuesday (March 30) upheld a judgement finding oil giant Total responsible for a disastrous oil spill in 1999 and confirmed an important legal notion that could have implications for the global oil industry.
Total was held responsible in 2008 for the damage caused when the Erika, an ageing oil tanker it had chartered, broke apart and sank in a winter storm off the coast of Brittany in western France in 1999, spilling 20,000 tonnes of crude oil.
Daniel Soulez-Lariviere, lawyer for Total, said Total could not possibly know that the ship was in a poor state:
"According to the court we made a mistake in the vetting of this ship, but we don't agree with this. What I see is that the court has ignored all of our other explanations, and considered that the disaster was caused by the corrosion. But by definition, we could not see this corrosion of the structures, you can't put a ship in dry docks everytime you want to rent it."
The oil slick covered 400 km (250 miles) of coastline, killing thousands of birds and marine animals.
Tuesday's ruling upheld the legal notion that sees harm to the environment as a form of damage for which polluters must pay compensation in the same way they do for other forms of economic damage to individuals or corporations.
"If you like it is of course a great moral satisfaction because the court recognised Total's criminal responsibility and the ecological damage. But it's also a great disappointment because Total won't have to pay. It means the charterer is responsible in criminal terms but not in civil terms. This means that when an oil company wants to use a rust-bucket they will be facing a small criminal responsibility but it won't cost them anything and that is very worrying for the future", said Corinne Lepage, who represents the small towns along the coast hit by the spill.
"The (oil companies) will have to be more careful even if the amounts remain relatively modest, but the recognition of this damage is a real advance in the law and in international law and we will bring that up every time we can," said another green activist Benoit Hartmann after the judgement was read out.
"This is a recognition that the living has value although not a commercial one. Up until now, damages were paid for the fish which hadn't been fished, the oysters or the mussels which hadn't been exploited but the seal, the bird and other wild animals were ignored as they didn't have any commercial value. Today they have a price, they are recognised as having a financial value and, in a market economy, it is crucial," added Allain Bougrain-Dubourg, who heads a bird protection group in France.
Total appealed against the 2008 ruling, which ordered it to pay 200 million euros in damages to environmental groups, local governments and others involved in the cleanup.
It argued it could not be held responsible for the failings of an Italian shipping certification firm that gave the decrepit Erika a clean bill of health. The Italian owners and the certifiers were convicted and fined in 2008. - Copyright Holder: FILE REUTERS (CAN SELL)
- Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2011. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
- Usage Terms/Restrictions: None