THE IMPACT OF THE EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ON THE CARRIAGE OF OIL BY SEA

Abstract

U radu se daje prikaz presude Europskog suda (ECJ – European Court of Justice) povodom zahtjeva francuske općine Mesquer za naknadu troškova skupljanja uljnog otpada nakon nezgode tankera Erika 1999. godine. Europski sud je donio odluku koja će nedvojbeno ostaviti utjecaja na pitanje primjene međunarodnog sustava odgovornosti za naknadu štete zbog onečišćenja mora uljem (CLC/Fond sustava) na području država članica Europske unije. Navode se pitanja o kojima je Sud raspravljao, a koja se odnose na tumačenje pojedinih odredbi EU Direktive o otpadu 75/442 te odnosa europskih propisa i međunarodnih ugovora. Posebno se naglašava odluka Suda da se ulje, koje se prevozi brodom, u trenutku kada dospije u more može smatrati otpadom u smislu navedene Direktive. Zaključuje se da navedeno tumačenje Suda omogućuje žrtvama onečišćenja, u slučajevima kada međunarodni sustav nije dostatan za namirenje, podnošenje odštetnih zahtjeva i na temelju Direktive o otpadu, ne samo prema proizvođaču i posjedniku otpada, već i prema posjednicima ili proizvođačima proizvoda koji je postao otpad. Njihova financijska odgovornost posljedica je njihovog udjela u nastanku otpada i snošenju rizika od onečišćenja. Sud je još jednom dao prednost europskim propisima, bez obzira na primjenu posebnog međunarodnog režima odgovornosti za onečišćenje mora uljem koji obvezuje većinu država članica.This paper examines a very important preliminary ruling, delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) in the Commune de Mesquer v Total France and Total International Limited case. The Commune de Mesquer brought proceedings against the TOTAL group for the reimbursement of the costs of cleaning and anti-pollution operations in its coastal territory following the sinking of ERICA. The Commune sued the companies in the TOTAL group relying on Directive 75/442/EEC (Waste Directive). Following its unsuccessful actions in two lower courts, the Commune lodged an appeal before the Court of Cassation, which referred to the Court of Justice questions concerning the interpretation of the Directive at issue. The Court held that oil accidentally spilled at sea following a shipwreck is a "waste" for the purpose of the said Directive. In accordance with the "polluter pays" principle, the costs associated with the disposal of oil waste are to be borne by the previous holder or by the producer of the product from which the waste came. The author warns that the Court has stated that the owner of the ship carrying the hydrocarbons holds them in possession immediately before they become waste. In those circumstances, the shipowner may thus be regarded as having produced that waste, and be categorised as a holder within the meaning of the Directive. The judgment of the Court of Justice will undoubtedly leave an impact on the existing international liability and compensation regime for vessel-source pollution. The annotated case ensures a correct application of the "polluter pays" principle. Victims of pollution damage may therefore be compensated on both international and EC law grounds