Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compensation by the Coastal States — The Prestige Disaster

  • Conference paper
Pollution of the Sea — Prevention and Compensation

Part of the book series: Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs ((HAMBURG,volume 10))

Abstract

This paper is not intended to constitute an exhaustive treatment of all subjects related to the Prestige accident. Moreover, its purpose is not to provide an indepth legal analysis of all relevant Spanish regulations ensuing from the Prestige accident, but simply to track the general trends of the legal policy. The paper will also attempt to elicit some of the lessons learned from the disaster.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See IMO Resolution A. 949(23), December 2003, “Guidelines on Places of Refuge for Ships in Need of Assistance”, Par. 1.3: “When a ship has suffered an incident, the best way of preventing damage or pollution from its progressive deterioration would be to lighten its cargo and bunkers; and to repair the damage. Such an operation is best carried out in a place of refuge.” See also Timagenis, Places of refuge as a legislative problem: CMI Yearbook 2003 (2004) 375–379.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gonzales Laxe, Análisis de las consecuencias económicas y sociales de los desastres marítimos: el caso del Prestige (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  3. See Manjón-Cabeza Olmeda, El caso Prestige — perspectiva jurídico-penal: Revista General de Legislación y Jurisprudencia, III época, 2002, no. 4, oct-dic., p. 573–593.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See, for example, Simon, La penalisation du droit est-elle efficace en matière de pollution marine?: Le Droit Maritime Française 645, February 2004, p. 166–168; Marques, La repression des rejets illicites d’hydrocarbures: Le Droit Maritime Française 647, April 2004, p. 307–323.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See Observations, Jurisprudence Françáise: Le Droit Maritime Française, 645, February 2001, p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See Jacobsson, Le régime international d’indemnisation des victimes des marées noires en pleine évolution: Le Droit Maritime Française 652, October 2004, p. 793–807.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jacobsson (Note 6 supra) 797.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hetherington, ‘Prestige’ — Can the Law Assist?: CMI Yearbook 2003 (2004) 361–374; Shaw, Places of Refuge. International Law in the Making: CMI Yearbook 2003 (2004) 329–343.

    Google Scholar 

  9. RD 276/2005, March 11 (BOE no. 61, March 12).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gaskel, Pollution, Limitation and Carriage in the ‘Aegean Sea’, in Lex Mercatoria — Essays on International Commercial Law in honour of Francis Reynolds, ed. by Francis Rose (2000) 71, 77.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Reflexión de l’Académie de Marine sur la prévention des catastrophes maritimes: Le Droit Maritime Française 637, mai 2003, p. 454, 469; Bulher, Les marées noires: prévention et réparation: Le Droit Maritime Française 637, Mai 2003, p. 471, 474.

    Google Scholar 

  12. BOE no. 160, 3 July 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  13. BOE no. 148, 21 June.

    Google Scholar 

  14. BOE no. 281, 23 Novembre 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  15. BOE no. 290, 4 December 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  16. BOE no. 310, 27 December 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  17. BOE no. 281, 23 November 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  18. BOE no. 4, 4 January 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  19. BOE no. 4, 4 January 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  20. BOE no. 184, 2 August 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  21. BOE no. 262, 1 November 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  22. BOE no. 298, 13 December 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  23. BOE no. 24, 28 January 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  24. BOE no. 61, 12 March 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ringbom, You are welcome, but... Places of re fuge and environmental liability and compensation, with particular reference to the EU: CMI ye arbook 2004, 208, 216–218, pointed out that the obvious risk with accepting a ship to a place of refuge is that by directing it towards its own coastline, the State accepts a risk of pollution occurring in its waters, and it could result in contributory negligence on the basis of CLC article III(3). On the other hand, a refusal to accept a ship into refuge could involve legal or financial consequences for the coastal State. See also Browne, Places of Refuge-The IUMI Solution, IU MI Conference 2003, Seville, at <www.iumi.com/conferences/2003-sevilla/1609/BBrowne.pdf> p. 1–12; Report on Places of Refuge submitted by Comité Maritime International to the IMO Legal Committee: CMI Yearbook 2004, 389–393; van Hooydonk, Accommodating a ship in distress: rights and responsibilities of ports authorities: Towards a liability and compensation framework? Rights and re sponsibilities of port authorities, ESPO International Workshop, University of Antwerp, 11 December 2003 <www.espo.be/news/event_11-12-2003.asp>, p. 9-1.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vialard, Faut-il reformer le regimen d’indemnisation des dommages de pollution par hydrocarbures?: Le Dr oit Maritime Française, 637, Mai 2003, p. 435, 447.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Smith, State responsibility and the marine environment (1998) 154; Blanco-Bazan, The Environmental UNCLOS and the Work of IMO in the Field of Prevention of Pollution from Vessels, in: Internationa l Maritime Environmental Law, ed. by A. Kirchner (2003) 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Beurier, La sécurité maritime et la protection de l’environnement: évolutions et limites: Le Droit Maritime Française, 645, February 2004, p. 99, 110.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See Garcia Gomez de Mercado, Legislación de Expropiación Forzosa, Comentarios y Jurisprudencia (2nd ed. 2001) 407–439. See, generally, Muñoz Machado, La responsabilidad concurrente de las Administraciones Públicas (1992); Gonzales Perez, La responsabilidad patrimonial de las Administraciones Públicas (1996); Garrido Falla, Tratado de Derecho Administrativo, Vol. II (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Whittaker, Principles of French Law (1998) 354; Fairgrieve, 16–19; Grosdidier de Matons, La responsabilité de l’Etat pour le fonctionnement de certains services maritimes: Le Droit Maritime Française 1968, p. 67–76; Renard-Payen/Robineau, La responsabilité de l’État pour faute du fait du fonctionnement défectueux du service public de la justice judiciaire et administrative, at <www.courdecassation.fr/_rapport/rapport02/etudes&doc/1-EtudeRenard-Payen.htm>.

    Google Scholar 

  31. For Italy, see, Duni, Lo Stato e la responsabilitàpatrimoniale, (1968); Article 52 delle leggi sulla Corte dei Conti, passed on 12 June 1934, no. 1214; Article 18 dello Statuto degli impiegati civili dello Stato, Decree 10 January 1957. As regards Germany, see Section 839 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch.

    Google Scholar 

  32. See, for example, Martinez-Bujan Perez, La posible responsabilidad penal del gobierno: El País, Saturd ay, 1 March 2003, p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sentencia Tribunal Supremo 18 July 1983, Aranzadi 4085.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Smith, State responsibility and the marine environment (1998) 155; Daniel, Civil Liability Regimes as a Complement to Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Sound International Policy or False Comfort?: (2003) 12 Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 225, 238; Vialard (Note 26 supra) 446.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Reflexión de l’Académie de Marine sur la prévention des catastrophes maritimes (Note 11 supra) 460.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bulher (Note 11 supra) 475.

    Google Scholar 

  37. ORDEN HAC/114/2004, 27 January 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bulher (Note 11 supra) 475; AA.VV, Problemas jurídico-administrativos planteados por el Prestige (2004) 97.

    Google Scholar 

  39. European Commision’s Explanatory Memorandum of the Proposal of the COPE fund; see in Ringbom, The ‘Erika’ accident and its effects on EU Maritime Regulation, in: Current Maritime Environmental Issues and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ed. by Nordquist/Moore (2001) 265, 277.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Vialard (Note 26 supra) 435–451.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Daniel (Note 34 supra) 240.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gaskel (Note 10 supra) 76.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Cádiz, Spain

    Juan L. Pulido (Professor of Maritime and Commercial Law)

Authors
  1. Juan L. Pulido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Mittelweg 187, 20148, Hamburg, Germany

    Jürgen Basedow (LL.M. (Harvard) (LL.M. (Harvard)

  2. Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft, Universität Hamburg, Schlüterstraße 28, 20146, Hamburg, Germany

    Ulrich Magnus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Pulido, J.L. (2007). Compensation by the Coastal States — The Prestige Disaster. In: Basedow, J., Magnus, U. (eds) Pollution of the Sea — Prevention and Compensation. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 10. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73396-6_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation