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

The Grand Prince Case (Belize v. France)

País/Territorio
Belice, Francia
Tipo de la corte
Corte internacional
Fecha
Apr 20, 2001
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
Cot
Número de referencia
List of cases No. 8
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Pesca, Mar, Cuestiones jurídicas
Palabra clave
Zona de pesca Zona marítima Pesca marítima Embarcación de pesca Acuerdo internacional-texto Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos Área marina
Resumen
The Grand Prince was a fishing vessel. At the time of its arrest on 26 December 2000, it was flying the flag of Belize. The vessel had sailed from Durban, South Africa, early in December 2000 in order to fish for Patagonian toothfish and lobster in the international waters of the Southern Ocean. On 26 December 2000, the Grand Prince was boarded by the crew of a French surveillance frigate in the exclusive economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories. The Grand Prince was escorted to Port-des-Galets, Réunion. A procès-verbal of violation was drawn up on 26 December 2000 against the Master of the Grand Prince for having: (a) fished without authorization in the exclusive economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands under French jurisdiction; (b) failed to announce his entry into the exclusive economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands and to declare some twenty tonnes of fish carried aboard. Approximately 18 tonnes of toothfish were found on board. The Commander of the frigate recorded the apprehension of the Grand Prince, the fishing gear, the electronic and electric fishing gear, the navigation and communication equipment, the ship’s papers, and the fish catch. In January 2001, the court of first instance (tribunal d’instance) at Saint-Paul confirmed the arrest of the Grand Prince and declared that its release would be subject to the payment of a bond in the amount of 11,400,000 FF in cash. The Applicant contended, inter alia, that the vessel did not catch any fish inside the Kerguelen exclusive economic zone and that the bond fixed by the court of first instance at Saint-Paul was not a "reasonable bond or other security" within the meaning of article 73, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in terms of its amount, form or nature; and that the rejection on 22 February 2001 by the court of first instance at Saint-Paul of the application for the release of the vessel upon presentation of a bank guarantee of 11,400,000 FF was in violation of the provisions of article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention. For these reasons, the Applicant requested the Tribunal to determine that France failed to comply with article 73 paragraph 2, of the Convention and that France should promptly release the vessel upon the posting of a bond or other security to be determined by the Tribunal. France contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the Application. The Tribunal emphasized that it had to examine whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the Application. More specifically, it had to satisfy itself that the Application was "made on behalf of the flag State of the vessel", as required by article 292, paragraph 2, of the Convention. According to the provisional patent of navigation issued by the International Merchant Marine Registry of Belize on 16 October 2000, the owners of the vessel were the Paik Commercial Corporation of 35A Regent Street, Belize City. According to the vessel’s certificate of class dated 23 June 1999, the owners of the vessel were NOYCAN B.L. -MOANA- VIGO, Spain. On the basis of an overall assessment of the material placed before it, the Tribunal concluded that the documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant failed to establish that Belize was the flag State of the vessel when the Application was made. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction under article 292 of the Convention to hear the Application. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was not in a position to deal with the submissions of the parties on the merits of the Application.
Texto completo
case_detail.pl

Referencias

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)