Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

The Camouco Case (Panama v. France)

País/Territorio
Panamá, Francia
Tipo de la corte
Corte internacional
Fecha
Feb 7, 2000
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Sede de la corte
Hamburg
Juez
Rao Chandrasekhara
Nelson
Caminos
Rangel Marotta
Yankov
Yamamoto
Kolodkin
Park
Engo Bamela
Mensah
Akl
Anderson
Vukas
Wolfrum
Treves
Marsit
Eiriksson
Ndiaye
Jesus
Zhao
Número de referencia
List of cases No. 5
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Pesca, Mar, Cuestiones jurídicas
Palabra clave
Zona de pesca Zona marítima Pesca marítima Embarcación de pesca Autorización/permiso Acuerdo internacional-texto Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos Infracciones/sanciones Área marina
Resumen
The Camouco was a fishing vessel flying the flag of Panama. Its owner was “Merce-Pesca (S.A.)”, a company registered in Panama. On 16 September 1999, the Camouco left the port of Walvis Bay (Namibia) to engage in longline fishing in the Southern seas. On 28 September 1999, the Camouco was boarded by a French surveillance frigate in the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands, 160 nautical miles from the northern boundary of the zone. The Camouco was re-routed and escorted under the supervision of the French navy to Port-des-Galets, Réunion. The procès-verbal of violation stated that the master of the Camouco was involved in unlawful fishing in the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands under French jurisdiction and failure to declare entry into the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands, while having six tonnes of frozen Patagonian toothfish on board the vessel. In its order of 8 October 1999, the court of first instance at Saint-Paul, confirmed the arrest of the Camouco and ordered that the release of the arrested vessel would be subject to the payment of a bond in the amount of 20,000,000 FF. On 7 October 1999, the Master was charged and placed under court supervision by the examining magistrate of the tribunal de grande instance at Saint-Denis. The Applicant requested the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to find that the French Republic had failed to observe the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) concerning prompt release of the Master of the vessel Camouco as well as the vessel itself. The Applicant also demanded that the French Republic promptly release the vessel Camouco and its Master, against payment of a reasonable bond. The Government of the French Republic rejected all submissions presented on behalf of the Republic of Panama. The Tribunal examined the question of admissibility of the application. The objection to admissibility by the Respondent was that domestic legal proceedings were currently pending before the court of appeal of Saint-Denis, whose purpose was to achieve precisely the same result as that sought by the present proceedings under article 292 of the Convention. The Respondent argued that the Applicant was incompetent to invoke this procedure as “a second remedy” against a decision of a national court and that the Application clearly pointed to a “situation of lis pendens which casts doubt on its admissibility”. In the view of the Tribunal, it was not logical to read the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies into article 292. Article 292 of the Convention was designed to free a ship and its crew from prolonged detention on account of the imposition of unreasonable bonds in municipal jurisdictions. Equally, it safeguarded the interests of the coastal State by providing for release only upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security determined by a court or tribunal referred to in article 292, without prejudice to the merits of the case in the domestic forum against the vessel, its owner or its crew. Article 292 provided for an independent remedy and not an appeal against a decision of a national court. No limitation should be read into article 292 that would have the effect of defeating its very object. Article 292 permitted the making of an application within a short period from the date of detention and it was not normally the case that local remedies could be exhausted in such a short period. The Tribunal then analyzed the question of non-compliance with article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention. It decided whether the bond imposed by the French court of 20 million FF was “reasonable”. The Tribunal considered that a number of factors were relevant in an assessment of the reasonableness of bonds. They included the gravity of the alleged offences, the penalties imposed or imposable under the laws of the detaining State, the value of the detained vessel and of the cargo seized, the amount of the bond imposed by the detaining State and its form. The Tribunal concluded that the bond of 20 million FF imposed by the French court was not “reasonable”. It ordered that France should promptly release the Camouco and it’s Master upon the posting of a bond of eight million French Francs.
Texto completo
case_detail.pl

Referencias

Cited by
Cita

Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar

Tratado | Multilateral | Montego Bay |

Palabra clave: Organización internacional, Generaciones futuras, Especies migratorias, Educación, Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos, Fondo marino profundo, Relaciones internacionales/cooperación, Corte/tribunal, Volumen admisible de captura, Propiedad de embarcaciones pesqueras, Contaminación marina (desde tierra), Temporadas, Responsabilidad/indemnización, Sistema de alerta rápida/sistema de intervención de emergencia, Plataforma continental, Puerto, Cumplimiento/aplicación, Soberanía, Alta mar, Inspección, Especies exóticas, Contrato/acuerdo, Recopilación de datos/informes, Aparejos de pesca/métodos de pesca, Navegación, Exploración, Política/planificación, Derecho de acceso, Capturas incidentales, Solución de controversias, Ordenación/conservación, Licencia de pesca, Zona marítima, Evaluación/manejo de riesgos, EIA, Contaminación marina (por buques), Contaminación marina, Investigación, Control de la contaminación, Mamíferos marinos, Infracciones/sanciones, Autorización/permiso, Registro, Monitoreo, Negocios/industria/corporaciones, Contaminación aerea de largo alcance, Transferencia de tecnología, Competencia jurisdiccional, Contaminación marina (vertimiento), Minería, Incremento del stock/repoblación, Manejo y conservación pesquera, Tarifas por licencias de pesca, ZEE-Zona Económica Exclusiva, Talla, Pesca marítima, Islas, Manejo de recursos marinos, Uso sostenible

Fuente: IUCN (ID: TRE-000753)