期刊文献+

石油公司应该对船舶油污损害负责吗?——评欧盟法院对Erika轮油污案的裁决 被引量:2

Should the oil company be held liable for the vessel-source marine pollution damages?——comment on the civil verdict of the European Court regarding the MV Erika oil pollution case
下载PDF
导出
摘要 从2008年6月欧盟法院就法国最高法院向其"请示"的Erika轮油污案之裁决入手,分析油污民事责任公约的立法背景,指出在民事责任公约的体系之下承担污染损害责任的应该是船东,而不应向作为货方的石油公司进行索赔。欧盟法院所认定的石油公司可被视为欧盟废弃物相关法律之下的废弃物制造者,以及石油公司可能需要就因船舶溢油事故导致的海域石油污染损害负责之观点与现行的油污民事责任公约相悖。 Starting from analyzing the European Court's civil verdict of June 2008 regarding the MV Erika oil pollution case that is referred to it by the French Supreme Court,this article illustrates the legislation background of the oil pollution civil liability conventions and points out that under the civil liability conventions system the party responsible for the oil pollution should be the ship-owners and the claim should not be directed against the oil companies.The opinion of the European Court that the oil c...
作者 彭先伟
出处 《中国海商法年刊》 2009年第3期102-108,共7页 Annual of China Maritime Law
关键词 油污损害责任 废弃物损害责任 Erika轮油污案 连带责任 污染者付费原则 oil pollution liability waste liability MV Erika oil pollution case joint and several liability polluter pays principle
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

  • 1张湘兰,徐国平.试论船舶油污损害赔偿义务主体[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2004,57(3):386-391. 被引量:11
  • 2E.H.P. Brans. The 1999 Erika Oil Spill in France. Can the cargo-owner be held liable for the damage caused?[J] 2000,International Law FORUM du droit international(2):67~70

二级参考文献12

  • 1[1]O.R.1969,LEG/CONF/C.2/SR.3,p.626,O.R.1969,LEG/CONF/C.2./SR.4,p.638.
  • 2[2]Samuel Bergm an, No Fault Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol.5, No.1, 1973. p.21.
  • 3[3]OPA,§1001 Definition(32)(A)Vessels.
  • 4[4]Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference,p.101, in Cof..Rep.H.Rep.No.101-653(Augest 1,1990).
  • 5[5]3CFR Ch.1(7-1-91 ed.),§130.2(q).Author's emphasis.
  • 6[6]33 U.S.C. §1321.
  • 7[7]33 U.S.C.§2702(d).
  • 8[8]O.R.1969,LEG/CONF/C.2/SR.14pp.703-704.
  • 9[9]33 U.S.C. §2716(a).
  • 10[10]Financial Responsibility for Water Pollution (Vessels), 61 Fed. Reg. 9,264, 9,307(1996).

共引文献10

同被引文献13

  • 1ECJ,Renault v.MaxlcarMay 11,2000,case C-38/98. .
  • 2The Angelic Grace. 1 Lloyd‘s Rep 87 . 1995
  • 3Case C-116-02. 1 Lloyd‘s Rep 222 . 2004
  • 4Case C-159/02. 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 169 . 2004
  • 5BGH,30.1.2003-IIIZB6/02. .
  • 6Case No.RSB 57/78. 6Y.B.Com.Arb.127 . 1981
  • 74 Y.B.COM.ARB.191 . 1979
  • 8Hans van Houtte.Parallel Proceedings before State Courts and Arbitration Tribunals-Is there a Transnational lis alibi pendens-exception in Arbitration or Jurisdiction Convention?. ASA Special Series No.15 . 2001
  • 9International Law Association.Final Report on Lis Pendens and Arbitration. www.ilahq.org .
  • 10Christian Oetiker.The Principle of Lis Pendens in International Arbitration:The Swiss Decision Fomento v.Colon. Arbi-tration International .

二级引证文献11

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部