Total condemned during the Erika trial

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
Targol
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1897
Registration: 04/05/06, 16:49
Location: Bordeaux region
x 2

Total condemned during the Erika trial




by Targol » 16/01/08, 16:04

PARIS (Reuters) - The Total group and three other natural and legal persons were sentenced to fines and a total of 192 million euros in reparations for "maritime pollution" during the sinking of the oil tanker Erika that occurred off the coast of Brittany in 1999.

After eight years of proceedings and four months of trial last summer, the Paris Criminal Court also recognizes the right of nature protection associations to obtain compensation for damage to the environment, a victory close to the recognition of the "ecological damage", she asked.

This right to compensation is however explicitly reserved by the court for associations. Municipalities, departments and regions are always limited to the sole right to have their own damage compensated.

Among the hundred civil parties - regions, departments, municipalities, French state, associations - the state alone obtains 153,8 million euros.

The civil parties demanded a total of around one billion euros in reparations.

This judgment marks a breakthrough in French case law on maritime transport because it is the first time that the liability of an oil company has been recognized in a major pollution case.

The judges believe that the group was not legally the charterer of the Erika. He is doomed because he exercised de facto control over the condition of the ship, they say.

The transport sector of Total, which is legally the charterer of the Erika, is released.

The service in charge of "vetting" (inspection of ships before charter, carried out by Total) was legally attached to the Total SA group, the court noted. So he took on a de facto control mission, he said.

The 24-year-old Maltese-flagged Erika broke in two on December 12, 1999 in a storm before sinking and spilling 20.000 tonnes of fuel over 400 km of coastline, killing tens of thousands of birds and ravaging marine flora and fauna.

The first French company in importance and the fourth largest private oil group in the world, Total SA is sentenced to a fine of 375.000 euros in criminal matters, the maximum penalty provided for marine pollution for a legal person.

PROBABLE CALL

On the other hand, the court acquits the company on the other count of "complicity in endangering others". Another legal entity, the world-renowned Italian maritime control body Rina, is fined 175.000 euros.

Giuseppe Savarese, ex-Italian owner of the ship, and Antonio Pollara, ex-manager of the Erika, are fined 75.000 each. The Indian captain of the tanker, Karun Mathur, absent from the trial and under arrest warrant, is released.

Also released are the two subsidiaries of Total, Total Petroleum Services and Total transport, as well as Gianpiero Ponasso, Rina executive, Bertrand Thouillin, former Total security manager, Alessandro Ducci and Mauro Clemente, two Italians who sub-chartered the company. 'Erika to Total on her last trip.

Also cleared by the court are three soldiers (including Admiral Michel de Fresse de Monval) and a civilian employee of the maritime prefecture of Brest, indicted for alleged negligence in the organization of relief.

Total, who claims to be totally innocent, as well as the other convicts who have all pleaded for acquittal at the trial, should appeal the judgment, which will suspend the sanctions. Another trial should therefore be organized in about a year in Paris.

The civil parties claimed a total of around one billion euros, including 153 million for the state.


source: Yahoo news
0 x
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world is a fool, or an economist." KEBoulding
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79374
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11064




by Christophe » 16/01/08, 16:44

They "lost" that's good but 192 Million ... it's nothing ... nothing at all ... : Cry: Exxon, in the USA country of liberalism I remind you for info, had been condemned for the sinking of the Valdez at $ 6 million at the time !!!

A) According to: http://www.boursorama.com/infos/actuali ... ws=5036523
Total's lawyer, Daniel Sulé-Larivière, said he was going to advise the oil company to appeal his conviction. He felt that this judgment was "not fair".


He is right they should have paid a lot more !!! : Cheesy: : Cheesy:

B) Still according to stock market see page: http://www.boursorama.com/profil/resume ... bole=1rPFP

Total made a net profit in 2006 of € 12 or € 135 per day or 000 of net profit (therefore after tax) per HOUR.

192 Millions is therefore less than 6 days of activity for TOTAL ... and since it is NET and I suppose that a fine is a charge, we can still (roughly speaking) divide by 2 .. . or 3 days ...

In short, let's say it's the equivalent of a 2nd or 3rd class fine for a person on minimum wage ...

This judgment is therefore a mask, a joke and a shame for the environment a few months after the Grenelle ...
Last edited by Christophe the 16 / 01 / 08, 21: 23, 2 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 16183
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5263




by Remundo » 16/01/08, 17:44

Hello everybody

I note

This judgment marks a breakthrough in French case law on maritime transport because it is the first time that the liability of an oil company has been recognized in a major pollution case.



This is a considerable step forward in the accountability of oil tankers who hitherto relied on their subcontracting company, in particular for transport flying the flag of the most lax countries in terms of boat safety.

Now the fine is peanut for Total. Total, in my opinion, is much more emm ... by the engagement of its responsibility in the event of subsequent shipwreck than by the fine, even if it was 1 billion Euro, because this will force it to control the quality of its subcontractors.

This is a particularly unsuccessful case law because the appeal will probably not revert to this responsibility even if it reduces the fine a little.

Finally, it remains to be seen what our good lawyers and judges will deliver on the costs of the princess. : Cheesy:


PS: Here, : Idea: I have a small question, maybe stupid, what does GISME mean under certain nicknames?
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79374
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11064




by Christophe » 16/01/08, 17:50

Yes, it is certainly a step forward, but frankly the case law does not prevent a fine greater than this symbolic fine: when we do something stupid, the punishment has to hurt right? Finally that's how I understand the term "punishment" ...

In addition we will see what the call will give, I bet they will reduce the fine by 50% ...

Otherwise I didn't quite understand who exactly from Total is going to pay because everyone seems "relaxed" ...

:|
0 x
Christine
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1144
Registration: 09/08/04, 22:53
Location: In Belgium, once
x 1




by Christine » 16/01/08, 17:50

Remundo wrote:PS: Here, : Idea: I have a small question, maybe stupid, what does GISME mean under certain nicknames?

it means Big Boss but BB it didn't 8)
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79374
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11064




by Christophe » 16/01/08, 17:56

I like BB :D

Yes these are the moderators.
If I remember correctly it means

Groupe (ment?)Iintervention Sspecial of Moderator Econologists (or Econology)

For the Special I have a doubt ...

Funnier: https://www.econologie.com/forums/a-propos-d ... t3671.html
0 x
Christine
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1144
Registration: 09/08/04, 22:53
Location: In Belgium, once
x 1




by Christine » 16/01/08, 18:03

Christophe wrote:Otherwise I didn't quite understand who exactly from Total is going to pay because everyone seems "relaxed" ...

Bin the legal person "Total".
Christophe wrote:Yes, it is certainly a step forward, but frankly case law does not prevent a fine greater than this symbolic fine: when you do something stupid, the punishment must hurt right?

The "Total" legal person was paid the maximum for what it was found responsible.
0 x
Targol
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1897
Registration: 04/05/06, 16:49
Location: Bordeaux region
x 2




by Targol » 16/01/08, 20:35

Christophe wrote:192 Millions is therefore less than 6 days of activity for TOTAL ... and since it is NET and I suppose that a fine is a charge, we can still (roughly speaking) divide by 2 .. . or 3 days ...


Certainly, but rather than comparing the amount of the fine to the monstrous profits of Tatol, it should rather be compared to the expected gain by preferring a trash boat to another safer but more expensive.

As Remundo said, this decision will set a precedent.

When a charterer with shit to transport has the choice between a floating trash can at 10 € and a safer ship at 000 € he will perhaps now say to himself that it is better to pay € 20 more than to risk € 000 in damages in the event of a glitch.

In short, more than the repression side, this decision will undoubtedly force polluters to prevent accidents so as not to have to pay.

In terms of oil, this is a huge advance in the measure or before, subject to joining the IOPC Fund, the oil tankers were GUARANTEED to pay nothing in the event of an oil spill, even if the damages greatly exceeded the amount of this background.
0 x
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world is a fool, or an economist." KEBoulding
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14141
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 16/01/08, 21:49

Bonjour à tous

So that it costs them nothing to continue to sail garbage ships, they also have the possibility of setting up very complex structures where responsibilities are drowned in the middle floors as is done for the laundering of dirty money. :frown:

A+
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
jean63
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2332
Registration: 15/12/05, 08:50
Location: Auvergne
x 4




by jean63 » 17/01/08, 14:31

The amount of compensation ..... they talked about it in the FR2 JT:

http://jt.france2.fr/13h/

click on "VENDÉE / RÉAC. JUGEMENT ÉRIKA"
0 x
Only when he has brought down the last tree, the last river contaminated, the last fish caught that man will realize that money is not edible (Indian MOHAWK).

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 197 guests