Source: http://www.sustainableenergylaw.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 10:34:53
Document Index: 511121813

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§5', '§4', '§5', '§6', '§11', '§10']

Sustainable Energy Law Notebook: 07.2010
Probo Koala Judgement Delivered by the High Court of The Netherlands: Debate on the Export of Hazardous Waste
On 23 July, The Netherlands High Court delivered its judgement in the Probo Koala case involving the multinational company Trafigura. The Court reviewed solely the acts that occurred in the port of Amsterdam. However, the High Court declared itself incompetence for judging the matter involving the liability of the municipality of Amsterdam. The FactsAct I: The Probo Koala ship is posted off the coast of Gibraltar. Trafigura orders to proceed onboard with the raw refinery and desulphurisation of remaining substances which resulted in the formation of harzardous slops. Act II: In July, the Probo Koala arrives in the port of Amsterdam where it tries to unload what it estimates to be "cargo residues' and not harzardous waste. The Amsterdam Port Services (APS) first accept the operation. But when they realise the nature of the substances, APS require a much higher price for the treatment. Trafigura refuses to pay and requires its substances to be reloaded onboard. Act III: The Probo Koala sails, via Estonia, to the Ivory Coast in August 2006. In Abidjan, a port officer recommends the Society Tommy for the treatment of the waste at a much cheaper rate. The waste were discharged without treatment and caused the death of 17 people, and the intoxication of 100,000 ones. Later on the Probo Koala was renamed Gulf Jash.With the 23 July judgement, it is the first time that Trafigura is condemned for a criminal offence in that case. Until now, the multinational company based in London has always succeeded in avoiding condemnation by paying financial compensations ($160 millions in 2007 to the government of Ivory Coast; and $50 millions in 2009 to individuals claiming injuries).The DecisionThe decision delivered on 23 July concerns the Dutch part of the case, i.e. the infringement of European rules regarding the import and export of hazardous waste (Regulation (EC) No.1013/2006 on the shipment of waste). Indeed, the legislation of waste, and in particular the EU legislation, has played a determinant role in the recognition of the offence, although the decision seems to refer primarily to Dutch legislation.One of the main conclusions relates to the legal charaterisation of the operation conducted by Trafigura, i.e. the illegal export of harzardous waste to Ivory Coast. The extent to which the slops transported by the Probo Koala enter into the scope of application of the European legislation is a central issue. Two provisions of the Regulation are of particular relevance: Article 36 on the illegal export of hazardous waste to non-OECD countries for recovery; Article 34 on the export of waste for disposal. But international rules may also apply, as argued by Trafigura's layers, i.e. Basel Convention or MARPOL rules.The High Court of Amsterdan ruled that:Trafigura must be acquitted of the charge of forgery, because it should not have agreed to proceed to the treatment of the slops at the price proposed by APS, according to the Presiding Judge F. Bauduin.Trafigura's employee, Mr Naeem Ahmed, has been acquitted of one charge but convicted for leading the operations resulting in the dumping of waste "while its dangerous nature was concealed." He was condemned to a six-month suspended sentence and a 25,000 Euros fine.The Ukrainian captain of the Probo Koala was also condemned to a suspended prisen term of five-months.Trafigura is currently considering whether it should appeal the Court's decision.As pointed out by NGOs, the High Court Decision sanctions the "increasing industrialisation on the high seas." "Waste produced on board a vessel after an industrial process - in this case refining - should be rteated in the same way as industrial waste produced on land, and not under an exempt status of waste which derives from the normal operations of a vessel." (Ibid.) The decision, being the only sanction pronounced against Trafigura, also points out the relevance of the EU rules on export of waste in direction of developing countries as an important safety net, in particular in the present case for corporate activities that occured outside the EU territory and where international rules against private actors might face some shortcomings.The extent to which The Netherlands are responsible as regards the correct transposition of the EU rules will be examined by the European Court of Justice, which is competent on this matter. Two NGOs (Robin des Bois and Sherpa) have logged a complaint before the European Commission in April 2010 against The Netherlands and Estonia for a possible lack of or bad transposition. To be followed.Note: Since the judgement is only available in Dutch for the moment, this note is based on translated information, not the original decision.References:NL Hight Court Decision (in Dutch only);webiste of the Trafigura defencer;Trafigura press release of 23.07.2010;Robin des Bois, press release, 23.07.2010;CalumCarr blog discussing the qualification of the slops transported. Publié par
Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage: France Adheres to the 2001 Bunkers Convention
Today was published in the French Official Journal the Bill authorising the adhesion by France to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (2001) (so-called, Bunkers Convention). (Loi No. 2010-831 of 22 July 2010.) The Bunkers Convention, and IMO Convention, aims to ensure 'adequate, prompt and effective compensation' of persons suffering damage caused by spills of oil carried as fuel in ships' bunkers. The Bunkers Convention entered into force on 21 November 2008. Its scope of application is limited to damages occuring within the territory of its member parties, including territorial sea and exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The Convention contains a series of key requirements regarding the liability regime in case of 'pollution damage': direct action, that can be brought against an insurer; the registered owner must maintain mandatory insurance cover. Three resolutions have been adopted in relation to the Convention. Council Decision 2002/762/EC of 19 September 2002 had previously authorised the signature, ratification or accession to the Convention by the EU Member States (necessary due to the fact that Articles 9 and 10 of the Bunkers Convention affects the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, giving the EU exclusive competence to negotiate and conclude international agreements in these matters.) Since no provision in the Bunkers Convention allows for the ratification by organisation such as the EU, MSs had to adhere individually.References:JORF No. 168 of 23 July 2010;Legislative procedure of the French Act allowing adhesion;IMO website of the Bunkers Convention.
La Loi Grenelle II Est Promulguée - The French Green Legislative Act Grenelle II is Enacted
La Loi No. 2010-788 du 12 juillet 2010 portant engagement national pour l'environnement dite Loi Grenelle II a été publiée au JORF du 13 juillet.The French Green Legislative Act on the national commitment for the environment (so-called Grenelle II) has been enacted and published on the French Official Journal on 13 July.Références:Legifrance.gouv.fr, JORF No. 160 du 13 juillet 2010 (p.12905);Site du Ministère de l'Ecologie, de l'Energie, du Développement Durable et de la Mer.
Norwegian Hydropower: Ny Forskrift om Utleie av Vannkraftanlegg i Kraft
I dag, 1. juli 2010, trer i kraft en ny forskrift om utleie av vannkraftanlegg i Norge. Forskriften fastsetter kriterier for utleie og bruk av driftsoperatør. Ifølge §2, forskriften gjelder:"avtaler om utleie av vannkraftanlegg og avtaler med driftsoperatør om bortsetting av drift og vedlikehold, som er knyttet til utbygde konsesjonspliktige vannfall med kraftverk og tilhørende anlegg i medhold av industrikonsesjonsloven §5."Forskriften åpner for tre forskjellige avtalesituasjoner, dvs. når:avtaler om utleie med overføring av driftsansvar (§4) = leietakeren overtar både den kommersielle råderetten og ansvaret for drift og vedlikehold av vannkraftverket;avtale om utleie uten overføring av driftsansvar (§5) = leietakeren overtar kun den kommersielle råderetten over hele eller deler av vannkraftverkets produksjon;operatøravtaler (§6) = eieren setter bort ansvaret for drift og vedlikehold, men beholder den kommersielle råderetten over vannkraftverket selv.Avtalene må godkjennes av OED (§11) og kan inngås for inntil 15 år (§10).Disse nye bestemmelser er en direkt konsekvense av Hjemfallsaken fra EFTA-domstolen. Jf. OED websiden om Prinsippet om offentlig eirskap (konsolideringsmodellen) og Hjemfallsaken.Referanser: Forskrift om utleie av vannkraftanlegg FOR-2010-06-25-939;OED pressemelding Nr.74/10, 25.06.2010.
Probo Koala Judgement Delivered by the High Court ...
Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage: F...
La Loi Grenelle II Est Promulguée - The French Gre...
Norwegian Hydropower: Ny Forskrift om Utleie av Va...