Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

The Grand Prince Case (Belize v. France)

Pays/Territoire
Belize, France
Type de cour
Cour internationale
Date
Avr 20, 2001
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Siège de la cour
Hamburg
Juge
Rao Chandrasekhara
Nelson
Caminos
Rangel Marotta
Yankov
Yamamoto
Kolodkin
Park
Engo Bamela
Mensah
Akl
Anderson
Vukas
Wolfrum
Treves
Marsit
Eiriksson
Ndiaye
Jesus
Cot
Numéro de référence
List of cases No. 8
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Pêche, Mer, Questions juridiques
Mot clé
Accord international-texte Pêche maritime Zone de pêche Zone marine Navire de pêche Aire marine Procédures judiciaires/procédures administratives
Résumé
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.
Texte intégral
case_detail.pl

Références

Cite

Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer

Traité | Multilatéral | Montego Bay |

Mot clé: Inspection, Fonds marins, Zone marine, Lutte contre la pollution, Procédures judiciaires/procédures administratives, Périodes, Organisation internationale, Redevances des licences de pêche, Responsabilité/indemnisation, Règlement des différends, Gestion des ressources marines, Pollution de la mer (immersion de déchets), Plateau continental, Re-empoissonnement/repeuplement, Espèces exotiques, Gestion/conservation, Gestion et conservation des pêches, Espèces migratoires, Prises accessoires, Recherche, Générations futures, Pollution de la mer, Utilisation durable, Engins de pêche/méthodes de pêche, Transfert de technologie, Collecte de données/déclarations, Pollution marine (imputable aux navires), Compétence juriductionnelle, Souveraineté, Monitorage, Propriété du navire, EIA, Autorisation/permis, Contrat/accord, Îles, Mise en application, Mammifères marins, ZEE-Zone Economique Exclusive, Cour/tribunaux, Droit d'accès, Pêche maritime, Politique/planification, Exploitation minière, Pollution de l'air à longue distance, Infractions/sanctions, Navigation, Enregistrement, Licence de pêche, Pollution marine (d'origine tellurique), Évaluation/gestion des risques, Volume admissible de captures, Exploration, Relations internationales/coopération, Port, Commerce/industrie/sociétés, Haute mer, Réseau d'alerte/intervention d'urgence, Taille, Éducation

Source: IUCN (ID: TRE-000753)