Pleadings, Minutes of Public Sittings and Documents MA©moires, procA?s-verbaux des audiences publiques et documents, Volume 7 (2001)

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEATRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL DU DROIT DE LA MER

Pleadings, Minutes of PublicSittings and Documents

Mémoires, Procès-verbaux desAudiences Publiques et Documents

2001

VOLUME 7

Abbreviated reference:

ITLOS Pleadings, Minutes and Documents 2001, Vol. 7, “Grand Prince” (Belize v. France), Prompt Release

_______________

Référence abrégée :

TIDM mémoires, procès-verbaux et documents 2001, vol. 7, « Grand Prince » (Belize c. France), prompte mainlevée

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA

PLEADINGS, MINUTES OF PUBLIC SITTINGS AND DOCUMENTS

THE “GRAND PRINCE” CASE(Belize v. France)

PROMPT RELEASE

_______________

TRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL DU DROIT DE LA MER

MÉMOIRES, PROCÈS-VERBAUX DES AUDIENCESPUBLIQUES ET DOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE DU « GRAND PRINCE »(Belize c. France)

PROMPTE MAINLEVÉE

MARTINUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERSLEIDEN/BOSTON

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Tribunal international du droit de la mer

Am Internationalen Seegerichtshof 1, 22609 Hamburg, Germany

Published byMartinus Nijhoff Publishers

Printed on acid-free paper.

ISBN 978 90 04 16248 8© 2007 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

Printed and bound in The Netherlands

THE “GRAND PRINCE” CASE(BELIZE v. FRANCE)PROMPT RELEASE

_______________

AFFAIRE DU « GRAND PRINCE »(BELIZE c. FRANCE)

PROMPTE MAINLEVÉE

The proceedings relating to The “Grand Prince” Case were instituted on 21 March 2001 by an Application for prompt release pursuant to article 292 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

_______________

L’instance relative à l’Affaire du « Grand Prince » fut introduite le 21 mars 2001 par une demande de prompte mainlevée conformément à l’article 292 de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer.

INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS –INTRODUCTION DE L’INSTANCE

APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF BELIZE

Annexes 1-18Annex 1 Authorization issued to Mr Penelas Alvarez by the Attorney General of Belize dated 15 March 2001 (reproduced infra under the title Documents – Authorizations) Annex 1-1 Letter from the Attorney General of Belize to the Registrar dated 15 March 2001 transmitting the authorization (not reproduced)Annex 2 Bill of Sale (in Spanish) (not reproduced), with: – Bill of Sale and Acceptance of Sale (in Spanish and English) – Notarial Certificate of the Bill of Sale (in Spanish and English) – Acceptance of Sale (in Spanish and English) – Notarial Certificate of Acceptance of Sale (in Spanish and English) English translation of Bill of Sale English translation of Acceptance of SaleAnnex 3 Provisional Patent of Navigation of the Grand PrinceAnnex 4 Crew listAnnex 5 Procès-verbal d’appréhension nº 05/00 (fish catch) (in French)Annex 6 Procès-verbal d’appréhension nº 07/00 (navigation and communication equipment) (in French)

TABLE OF CONTENTS – TABLE DES MATIÈRES

THE “GRAND PRINCE” CASE(Belize v. France), Prompt Release

AFFAIRE DU « GRAND PRINCE »(Belize c. France), prompte mainlevée

3

169

23

24

2526

262729

3032

33

35

x TABLE OF CONTENTS – TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Annex 7 Procès-verbal d’appréhension nº 06/00 (fishing gear) (in French)Annex 8 Procès-verbal d’interpellation of 11 January 2001 (master) (in French)Annex 9 Procès-verbal de saisie nº 13/AM/2001 (vessel) (in French)Annex 10 Procès-verbal de saisie nº 11/AM/2001 (fishing material) (in French)Annex 11 Procès-verbal de saisie nº 12/AM/2001 (fishing gear) (in French)Annex 12 Procès-verbal de saisie nº 10/AM/2001 (fish on board) (in French)Annex 13 Ordonnance nº 3/2001 of 12 January 2001 of the Tribunal d’instance at Saint-Paul (in French) – English translation (not reproduced)Annex 14 Letter from Mr Penelas Alvarez to the Direction des affaires maritimes de la Réunion dated 7 February 2001, with fax transmission report (in Spanish) (not reproduced) – English translationAnnex 14 -1 Certification from Pesqueira da Paraiba Ltda concerning fishing licence to be received from Brazil (in Spanish) (not reproduced) – English translationAnnex 15 Request for the release of the vessel addressed by the owner of the Grand Prince to the Tribunal d’instance of Saint-Paul dated 19 February 2001 (in French)Annex 16 Ordonnance nº 6/2001 of 22 February 2001 of the Tribunal d’instance at Saint Paul (in French)Annex 17 Valuation of the Grand Prince from Mr Carceller Vilalta of TAXO Valoración, S.L. (in Spanish) (not reproduced), with annexes: – general arrangement drawing – Provisional Patent of Navigation (reproduced as Annex 3 of the Application) – R.I.N.A.: Certificate of Class – R.I.N.A.: Statement of Class (Spanish and English) English translation of valuation

37

39

41

43

45

47

4949

5252

5353

54

56

5757

3058

6266

xiTABLE OF CONTENTS – TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Annex 18 Technical report and certificate of valuation of the Grand Prince from Mr Antonio Alonso Perez, Marine Surveyor (in Spanish) (not reproduced), with annexes: – Bill of Sale (in Spanish) (not reproduced), with supporting documents (in Spanish and in English) (reproduced as Annex 2 of the Application) – Provisional Patent of Navigation (reproduced as Annex 3 of the Application) – drawings of the Grand Prince – ten colour prints of photographs of the Grand Prince and of parts of the equipment English translation of the report and certificate

PLEADINGS - MÉMOIRES

OBSERVATIONS DU GOUVERNEMENT FRANÇAIS

Annexes 1-3Annexe 1 Code de procédure pénal français (extraits : articles 393 et 394)Annexe 2 Jugement correctionnel du tribunal de grande instance de Saint Denis en date du 23 janvier 2001Annexe 3 Code pénal français (extrait : article 131-6) Code de procédure pénale français (extrait : article 471)

MINUTES OF PUBLIC SITTINGS –PROCÈS-VERBAUX DES AUDIENCES PUBLIQUES

MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC SITTINGS HELD ON 5, 6 AND 20 APRIL 2001PROCÈS-VERBAUX DES AUDIENCES PUBLIQUES DES 5, 6 ET 20 AVRIL 2001

71

71

3071

7378

89

95

96102

103

107

xii TABLE OF CONTENTS – TABLE DES MATIÈRES

PUBLIC SITTING HELD ON 5 APRIL 2001AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE DU 5 AVRIL 2001

après-midi

Opening of the Oral ProceedingsOuverture de la procédure orale

Argument of BelizeStatement of Mr Penelas Alvarez (Agent, Belize)

Plaidoirie de la FranceExposé de M. Alabrune (agent, France)Exposé de M. Quéneudec (conseil, France)

Argument of Belize (continued)Statement of Mr Penelas Alvarez (Agent, Belize)

Plaidoirie de la France (suite)Exposé de M. Alabrune (agent, France)



Examination of expertsExamination of Mr Carceller Vilalta by Mr Penelas Alvarez (Agent, Belize)Contre-interrogatoire de M. Carceller Vilalta par M. Quéneudec (conseil, France)Examination of Mr Alonso Perez by Mr Penelas Alvarez (Agent, Belize)Intervention by Judge EirikssonContre-interrogatoire de M. Alonso Perez par M. Quéneudec (conseil, France)


110111

112

116

118119

128

130

131131

132

136

139

140143

144

145

xiiiTABLE OF CONTENTS – TABLE DES MATIÈRES

après-midi

Plaidoirie de la France (suite)Exposé de M. Alabrune (agent, France)Argument of Belize (continued)Statement of Mr Penelas Alvarez (Agent, Belize)

Plaidoirie de la France (suite)Exposé de M. Alabrune (agent, France)

Reply of BelizeStatement of Mr Penelas Alvarez (Agent, Belize)

Duplique de la FranceExposé de M. Quéneudec (conseil, France)Exposé de M. Alabrune (agent, France)

Closure of the Oral ProceedingsClôture de la procédure orale


Reading of the JudgmentLecture de l’arrêt

DOCUMENTS – DOCUMENTS

Authorization – Autorisationa) Authorization issued to Mr Penelas Alvarez by the Attorney General of Belize dated 15 March 2001, with Apostille b) Notification of the appointment of Mr Penelas Alvarez by the Attorney General of Belize dated 26 March 2001c) Désignation de M. Alabrune en qualité d’agent du Gouverne- ment français par le directeur des affaires juridiques du Ministère des affaires étrangères de la France en date du 3 avril 2001

148

149

150

155

159160

161

162162

162

169

171

172

xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS – TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Designation of Judge ad hoc – Désignation d’un juge ad hoca) Lettre de M. Alabrune au Greffier en date du 3 avril 2001, avec en annexe : - curriculum vitae de M. Cot (non reproduit)b) Statement of Mr Penelas Alvarez dated 4 April 2001 concerning the nomination of a judge ad hoc by Francec) Letter from the Registrar to Mr Penelas Alvarez dated 4 April 2001

Completion of Documentation – Complément d’information a) Letter from the Registrar to Mr Penelas Alvarez dated 22 March 2001b) Letter from the Registrar to Mr Penelas Alvarez dated 30 March 2001, attached: - list of documents for completion of documentation c) Letter from the Registrar to Mr Védrine dated 30 March 2001, attached: - list of documents for completion of documentationd) Lettre de M. Alabrune au Greffier en date du 30 mars 2001, avec en annexe : - procès-verbal d’infraction nº 04/00 - procès-verbal de synthèse de la Gendarmerie maritime

Responses to questions from the Tribunal – Réponses aux questions du Tribunala) List of questions of 5 April 2001b) Réponses de la France aux questions posées par le Tribunal en date du 6 avril 2001c) Reply of Belize to questions posed by the Tribunal dated 6 April 2001

Additional documents submitted before the closure of thewritten proceedingsDocuments additionnels soumis avant la clôture de la procédure écrite

Submitted by Belizea) Article 55 de la Constitution françaiseb) Reply to the Observations of the French Government, attached: - acte d’appel of 31 January 2001 (in French) (not reproduced)

173173

174

175

176

177178

179180

181182188

192

194

196

199200200

xvTABLE OF CONTENTS – TABLE DES MATIÈRES

c) Certification of the registration of the Grand Prince from the Director of INMARBE dated 30 March 2001, with Apostilled) Request regarding possible application of article 28 of the Statute of the Tribunal dated 2 April 2001

Additional documents submitted after the closure of the written proceedings (article 71 of the Rules of the Tribunal)Documents additionnels soumis après la clôture de la procédure écrite (article 71 du Règlement du Tribunal)

Submitted by BelizeNote from Mr Penelas Alvarez transmitting:- notification of the Cour d’appel of Saint-Denis concerning the date for a hearing (in French)

Soumis par la Francea) Letter of the Director of INMARBE to the Honorary Consul of France in Belize dated 26 March 2001b) Note verbale from the Ministry of Foregin Affairs of Belize to the Embassy of France in El Salvador dated 4 January 2001c) Procès-verbal d’audience de personne gardée à vue du capitaine du Grand Prince dressé par la Gendarmerie maritime

204

206

207

208

209

210

211

Institution of Proceedings – Introduction de l’instance

APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF BELIZE

APPLICATION – BELIZE 5


APPLICATION FOR PROMPT RELEASE OF FISHING VESSEL "GRAND PRINCE" UNDER ARTICLE 292 OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

ON BEHALF OF: THE STATE OF BELIZE, represented by:

Mr. Alberto Penelas Alvarez, Avocat, Lawyers Bar Association of Vigo, Spain, of Pintor Laxeiro 11 , 2° A, 36211 , Vigo (Spain) , phone number: 34 986 210301 , Fax number: 34 986 294162, E-mail [email protected] and with passport number 36.058.322 A

AGAINST : FRANCE

“GRAND PRINCE”6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Statement of facts

Statement of Law

Jurisdicion

Authorization

Non compliance with article 73 paragraph 2 of theConvention:

- As to the exigency of prompt release - As to the nature 01 the bond - As to the form of the bond - As to the amount 01 the bond

Summary

Submissions

LIST OF OOCUMENTS

Number 1.- Authorization

Number 2.- Original Bill 01 Sale

Number 3.- Copy 01 provisional patent 01 navigation

Number 4.- Crew list

Paragraphs 1 - 34

35

36

37

39 40

38

41 - 50

50

Number 5.- Praces Verbal O'Apprehension olthe vessel

2


Number 6.- Proces Verbal O'Apprehension of the navigational equipment

Number 7.- Praces Verbal O'Apprehension of the fishing gear

Number 8.- Copy of the act of Proces Verbal O' lnterpeliation

Number 9.- Copy of the act of Praces Verbal de Saisie of the vessel

Number 10.- Copy of the act of Proces Verbal de Saisie of the fishing material

Number 11 .- Copy of the act of Proces Verbal de Saisie of the fishing gear

Number 12.- Copy of the act of Proces Verbal de Saisie of the fish on board

Number 13.- Copy of the Ordennance n' 312001 of the Tribunal O' lnstance de Saint Paul

Number 14.- Fax to the Maritime Authorities in Reunion justifying the fishing licence in Brazil

Number 15.- Request for release the vessel

Number 16.- Ordennance n' 612001 of the Tribunal O'lnstance of Saint Paul rejecting the request for release.

Number 17.- Expertise appraisal of the vessel market price , by the naval engineer , Faustino Carceller Villalta , of ''Taxo Valoracion, S.L"

Number 18.- Expertise appraisal of the vessel market price , by the Marine Surveyor, Captain Antonio Alonso Perez

l

“GRAND PRINCE”8

Annex 1 Authorization of Mr Penelas Alvarez from the Attorney General of Belize dated 8 March 2001 (reproduced infra under the title Documents – Authorizations) Annex 1-1 Letter from the Director of INMARBE to the Registrar dated 13 March 2001 transmitting the authorization (not reproduced)


3.- The vessel .....-as engaged in the fishing of lobster (as an experimental campaigne) and toothfish in the international .....-aters of the southern seas. lis master .....-as Mr. RamOn Francisco Perez Novo, of Spanish nacionality, .....tIo.....-as v.orking on board the ship for the first time.

4.- On .26 December 2.000 at approximately 08:53 hours.....-as tx>arded by the crfffl of the French slfVelliance frigate Nivose in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Kerguelen Islands in the French Southern and Antartic territories.

5.- According to the Captain of Grand Prince , he had never , before that date, fished within the said area . However, he recognised that , in fact, he entered in the zone on the 26 December 2.000 , and that he .....-as decided to fish. He also recognised, since the first moment that he had Very clear instructions from the shipov.r!er not to enter into the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Kerguelens or other restricted areas. I refer in this respect to page Iv.tI (first paragraph) of document number SO ("Proces Verbal D'Interpellation), .....tIera the statement of the Captain .....-as recorded.

It must be pointed out that also aCCOf"ding to the slatments of the Maritime Athorities in Reunion the Grand Prince .....-as fishing out side french .....-aters on the days before she .....-as detained.

6.- The yessel has never been adjudjed nor coodemned before any Tribunal of any State for any reason .....tIatsoever, not even fOfiliegal fishing.

7.- From the first moment the said Captain followed the orders and requirements given by the Captain of the frigate, and fumy cooperated with the french authorities , facilitating the inspection on board Grand Prince and showing all the books and documents related to the same.

8.- The Grand Prince had on board approximately 16/18 Tons of toothfish and two Hundred (200) Kilos of lobster.

9.- The Captain of the Frigate recorded the apprehension of the Grand Prince, the fish catch, the navigation and communicatioo equipment in the documents of "Proces Verbal DApprehension" , enclosed as documents numbers 5, 6 and 7

10.- The Grand Prince .....-as rerouted and escorted by the Frigate to Port.oos-Galets (Reuni6n), 'hhere it arriyed on 9 January , 2.001 .

11 .- On 11 January 2.001 , the Regional and Departmental Director of Maritime Affairs of Reunion drfffl up one "Proces Verbal D'lnterpeliationM and four "Proces Verbal de Saisie" , with the content stated in documents 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 , eoclosed.

On the four proces - verbaux of seizJSe it .....-as decided the seizlXe of all the fish on board the vessel , (that should be sold by means of a limited tender and the proceeds be credited to the public treasury) , the fishing gear and the yessel. ,

“GRAND PRINCE”10

The following estimations ....tIera made by the Maritime Authorities of Reunion;

- Fishing equipments - Fishing gear - Vessel - Fish on board

TOTAL

24.392 Euros 5.610 Euros 1.981 .837 Euros 123.848 Euros

2.135.323.- Euros

12.- By Order nO. 312001 of 12 January 2.001 , the Court of First Instance of Saint Paul confirmed the seizure of the Grand Prince. Copy of the Order is endosed as document number 13, with it's translation into english language.

13.- The same Order ruled that «the release of the vessel seized shall be carried out after the payment to the official Receiver of a bond amounting to a total of 11 ,400,000.00 FF Of 1,737.918.70 Euros .... »

14.- On the amount of the said bond , the Court took the following into account:

1) the value of the ship appraised by Mr. Chancerei, marine surveyor, at 13,000,000.00 FF

2) the fines incurred by the Master of the vessel (on the bais of 18 Tons of fish on board), estimated in an amount to a maximum of 9,000,000.00 FF,

3) damages caused by the offence, at 400,000.00 FF

This must be put in relation with the amount of the fine and damages impossed by the Corrediomel Court , to .....,ich we will refer later ; a fine of 200.000.- FF and Damages ; 21 .000 FF

15.-ln attention to the said valuations, the Court set the Bond as follows;

-to secure the representation of the Captain of the arrested vessel; 1,000,000 FF

- to secure payment of damages caused by the contraventions fOlrld ; 400.000 FF

- to seo.re payment of the fines incurred and the confiscation of the vessel ; 10,000,000.00 FF

The total amount of the bond ......as thus fixed on 11 ,400,000.00 FF Of

1,737,918,70 Euros

,


16.- As to the form or nature of the bond the said Court ordered that should be H<in kind, by certify cheque or by bank cheque"

Bank guarantee is not (and , as we will refer , was not) allowable.

17. - The Court also observed that, by virtue of the provisions of articles 73 paragraph 2, and 292 of the Convention, the bond must be 'reasonable', and 'that this means , more precisely, that the overall balance to be established between the amount , the form and the nature of this bond must be reasonable'.

18.- As we will refer later, the bond set by the said Court is far from being a "reasonable bond or other security" within the meaning of article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention, neither on irs amount nor on it's form or nature.

19.- Despite the shipowner's disagreement with the amount and form of the bond set by the Court, and without prejudice of legal actions, several arrangements with the authorities in Reunion were done in order to be able to avoid the detention of the vessel, and in tum the commencement of legal actions by the vessel creditors (cr8'Nl11embers and 'M>rkers ashore, suppliers, reparators, ship agents , banks , etc ... ), by posting the bond in the form of bank gucw-antee.

More precisely, the intention of the shipo'Mler was to place the said bank guarantee in the amount fIXed by the mentioned COIXI , get the vessel released , and afterwards put the matter of the unreasonableness of the amount of lhe Bond to an conciliation or arbitration procedure or before this Tribunal.

20.- In this regard, the shipCl'M1er commenced all the banking arrangements in order to prepare the bank guarantee.

21 .- The intlended 'MXding of the said bank guarantee was in similar terms to that specified to by Ihis Tribunal under paragraph 95 of the Judgement on the Monte Confurco case.

22.- The Maritime Authorities in Reunion were informed that the vessel , at the moment of the detention, was going to be refflaged and registered in Brasil, were she had allocated a fishing licence.

As document number 14, with it's translation, we enclose the communication which was sent to the Maritime Authorities , at their request, in order to evidence the importance that the prompt release of the ship had, otherNise the vessel could loose the fishing licence.

23.- However , In first place, it was not allowed a bond in the form of bank guarantee but only by payment in cash or by cheque. (we refer in this regard to dOQJment number 13)

7


24,- Furthermore, only eight (8) days after the notification to the Captain of Grand Prince of the said Ordennance Vvflere the bond was fixed, the 'Tribunal Correctionelof Saint Denis" (Reunion) , on the 23 January , 2001 , decided to confiscate the ship and, in order to avoid prompt (or late) release upon the posting of the guarantee sandioned by article 73.2 of the Convention, also decided to execute provisionally the oonfiscation. A fine was impossed to the Captain in the amount of 200.000 FF, plus 20.000 FF as indemnification for the four french shipo'M'lefs (the oompanies : Les Mascararaignes , La Comata, Legarrec and Sapmer) , plus 1 FF for the Regional Fishing Comilte .

25.- Through such "artifice" the said Correctionnel Tribunal managed, at least for the moment, to evade the clear and relevant exigencies for the States parties to the Convention contained in it's article 73,24', and very clear remar1<ed and oonslrued by this high Tribunal 'Nith occasion of the previous cases ("Saiga", "Camouoo" , Monte Confurco").

26.- Neither the shipoYlefler, nor the Captain, have received as yet any formal notification of the said decision, but the fact is that the vessel cannot be released by posting a guarantee, Vvflidl suposses that the ship 'Nill remain under arrest and detained during all the time of duration of legal proceedings.

27.- Despite lack of notification of the decision of the Cooectionnel Court , the shipoYlefler, in order to saveguard his rights , announced the appeal of the decision, on the understanding that it is an Utllay,.ful decision , being the punishment extremely disporportionate 'Nith the nature and extent of the offence.

The appeal 'Nill be heard at the Court of Appeal of Saint Denis, but no date for the hearing has been appointed as yet.

28.- As resul~ the vessel could not be released neither upon posting a reasonable guarantee , nor upon posting the bond initially fixed by the First Instance Tribunal of Saint-Paul.

29.- And the above, Honorable members of the Tribunal, as we 'Nill refer in the legal grounds of this application, constitutes a grave infringement by France of the provisions of the Convention and of the Jurisprudence of this Tribunal , on prompt release of vessels.

30.- Just in order to get some kind of evidence of this abnormal situation it was fi le before the Tribunal D'instance of Saint Paul a request of release of the ship upon posting of a bank guarantee in the amount fixed by the Tribunal (document number 15 ), Vvfl ich was rejected by Ordonnance nO &'2001 (document number 16 ) alleguing that , as far as the tribunal correclionnel ordered confiscation and provissionaJ execution , it ha no competence " 0 Ofder the release of the vessel in view of a simple bank guarantee"

•


What France calls a "simple bank guarantee" is precisely '.'kIat this Tribunal considerered in previous cases a reasonable nature or form of the bond.

31 .- We have expossed above the infringement by France of the provisions stated under artide 73 of the Convention, and the Jurisprudence of this Tribunal, by not allowing the posting of a bond in the form of bank guarantee, and, in parallel, by evading the exigency of prompt release through the artifice of deciding the confiscation of the vessel, and irs provisional execution, with the enough celerity to prevent irs release by posting of any kind of guarantee.

We will now treat in detail the matter related to the amount of the bonet

We understand that a bond in the amount of 11 .400.000,00 FF or it's equivalent of 1.737.918 Euros , cannot be regarded , from any point of view, to be a "reasonable bond or other security" within the meaning of of artide 73, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

In effect, the marine surveyOf '.'kIo made the appraisal of the vessel on behalf of the maritime authorities in Reunion , Mr. Chancerel, seems to have forgotten about the following:

a) that we are talking about a vessel of more than 34 years old

b) that , as stated in page 7 of the report of the Marine Surveror, Captain Antonio Alonso, endosed as document 17 , the price of a new built vessel of he characteristics of Grand Prince is approximately 2.560.240 Euros.

c) That Grand Prince 'NaS built as a stern trawier , and afterwards was remodelled being converted to a botton-liner by the dismantelation of her trawling windlass and astern ramp. Every expert in fishing vessels krlo'-M; that this adaptation implies that the vessel lacks the optimal characteristics, such as size, general arrangement and po-oM:!f for her present fishing activity. We refer in this regard to the reports endosed as documents 17 and 18, were this issue is dealt with in detail

In fact, the international market price for a vessel of the age and characteristics of Grand Prince is in the region of 360.000,- Euros '.'kIich is less than a third party of the value indicated by Mr. Chance rei.

In order to evidence that '.'kIat we are saying is true and accurate, we have enclosed as documents numbers 17 and 18 the expert opinions of two remarkable experts on the fishing vessel's market, the Marine Surveyor Captain Mr. Antonio Alonso Perez and the naval Engineer Mr. Faustino Carceller Villalta.

All this makes sense with the purchase price of the vessel paid by the shipowner (paik Commercial Corp) on the 27/03/00, '.'klich, as we have evidenced through the Bill of

,


Sale duly signed before a Public Notary and apostilled , enclosed as document number 2, was : 45.000.000.- Pesetas (271 .084 Euros)

For all these circumstances, it is impossible to accept that the amount of the bond fixed by France is "reasonable".

32.- Furthermore, we must recall that, as staled by this Tribunal in paragraph 66 of the Judgement pronounced in the Monte Confurco case, «the value of the fish and of the fishing gear seized is also to be taken into account as a facto( relevant in the assesment of the reasonableness of the bond», v.tIich , as far as we understand, supposes that the value (as determined by the french authorities) of the fish (123.848 Euros) and of the fishing gear (24.393 Euros) and fishing materials (5.610 Euros) , should be considered as part of the guarantee, as it was decided in the mentioned previous case .

This means that the sum of those three concepts , 153.851 Euros , should be computed wtlen fIXing the amount of the guarantee.

33.- For all the above reasons , we consider that , even contemplating the 'Mlfst scenario for the shipD'Mler, and trying not to take into account that the vessel did not catch any fish inside the EEl of Kerguelen any fish , the final and firm decision of the case by the french Courts would be fully guaranteed by a bank guarantee in the amount of 206.142 Euros

34.- A large number of third parties (crewmembers , wor1<.ers ashore, suppliers, reparators, ship agents , banks, etc ... ) are being affected by the unjustified detention of the vessel.

Statement of Law

Jurisdiction

35.- The Tribunal has jurisdiction in virtue of artide 292 paragraph 1 of the Conventioo, and provided that :

a) Belize and France are both parties to the Convention. Belize ratified the Convention on the 13-8-1983, and France on the 11 .05.1996.

b) the Grand Prince flied the flag of Belize at the time of the detention subject matter of this application.

c) the parties did not agree to submit the question of the detention to any other court 0( tribunal within 10 days of the time of detention

10


d) the submissions stated in this application concern the aUegued violations of article 73 paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Authorization

36.- The undersigned has been OOly authorised to make the p!'esent application on behalf of the State of Belize in virtue of the Letter enclosed as document number 1.

Non compliance with article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention

37.- As to the exigency of prompt release:

The arrest of the Grand Prince 'HaS made by the french authorities alleguing that she 'HaS fishing illegaly 'Nithin the Exclusive Economic Zone of Kerguelen Islands, and basing said actuation on article 73 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea , to mich . both Belize and France are parties, -M'iich reads as follows:

(1) The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploi~ conserve and manage the livilg resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including bocrding, inspection , arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary 10 enSlXe compliance 'Nith the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this convention .

(2) Arrested vessels and their crews shall be promptly released upon de posting of a reasonable bond or other sewrity.

It is evident that ....tlen the Convention allows the States to take measures to protect the f'8SOU'"ces of the EEl, induding arrest and judicial p!'oc:eedings, sets very dearty the following limits that must be observed by the States:

a) the measures must be adopted in conformity with the Convention;

b) the vessels (and crews) must be promptluy release

In this regard , the Tribunal, 'Ni!h occasion of previous cases ("Saiga" , "Monte Confurco" and "Camouco") , made very clear ....nat is the interpretation that must be given to the mentioned article :

"Article 73 identifieS tv.o interests , the interest of the Coastal State to take appropiate measures as may be necessary to enSll'e compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it on the one hand and the interest of the flag State in S80Jring prompt release of this vessels and their Cf"8'MI from detention on the other. It strikes a fair balance be\lNeen \INc interests . It provides for release of the vessel and its CffJW upon

II


the posting of a bond or other security, thus protecting the interests of the flag State and other persons affected by the detention of the vessel and its crew. The release from detention can be subject onlv to a 'reasonable' bond." {point 70 - pag 25-Judgement related to The Monte Coorurco Case.

It is equally evident that States cannot use anykind of subterfugies or tricks to evade such crucial requirements,

France , in this particular case, fixed initially 8 bond for release of the vessel, and only a few days later decided to confiscate the vessel (and irs equipment and fish) , as well as to execute provisiooally the decision, ....tIich in practical terms supposed that the vessel could not be released even by posting the bond fixed by France.

We are concious , that this way of proceeding has been carefully designed , so that -apparenlly- the State complies YJith the requisite of fixing a bond for prompt release, but in reality the release becomes impracticable because ....tIilst the arrested party is either making the arrangements to prepare the bond or questiooning the reasonableness (amount, nature or form) of the same, the confiscatioo is decided and executed provisionally.

And v.1th all respects, this is nothing else but a ''trick'', which in most Statal legisJations is regulated as "Fraud of laW'. Fraud of Law consists of using a provision of Law just YJith the objective of evading the compliance v.1th a legal requirement.

If this type of actuations were permitted , then article 73 of the Convention 'NOuld be "dead letters" , and every State could ..-rest vessels for infringements in the EEZ and upon arrival to Port (or even before) put the matter to a Court and decide inmediatly the confiscation and irs proviSional exeoJlion, irrespectively of any remedies of appeal (as did France in the present case; confiscation was decided bv the Court by the way) .

We are confident that this TribunalYJiIi resioce the legality in this respect.

38.- As to the nature of the borId

Irrespectively of what has been explained in paragraph 36, France did not comply neither YJith the requisite of "reasonableness of the bond" as to tit 's form or nature.

Let me recall v.t\at this Tribunal decided in previous matters YJith regard to this aspect:

In the "Saiga" case it was decided for the first time that the form of the bond shall be "a letter of credit or bank guarantee" (paragraph 85 of the Judgement)

With occasion of the cases Camouco and Monte Confurco the Tribunal 'Nant againt over this issue, and insisted on the same exigency as foilaoNs:

11


''The Tribunal notes that, in the 'Camouco' case , it decided that the bond should be in the form of a bank guarantee Oudgement of 7 February 2000, paragraph 74). No difficulty was encountered in the implementation of this judgement. Consequently, the claim of the respondent that cash or certified cheque are the only possible forms for the bond does not seem reasonable to the Tribunal." (paragraph 93 of the judgement of 18 December 2.000, in the Monte ConfU'"co case)

In our particular case, France has again limited the nature of the bond by requesting a "certified cheque or a bank cheque" ('ht1ich does not differ to much from a payment in cash) , not allowing a bank guarantee.

Consequently, the bond cannot be considered "reasonable" as to irs nature or form, and we are confiderlt that the TribLflal witl delermine that it shall be in the form of a bank guaratee.

39.- As to the form of the bond

FolIO'Mng the criteria of the Tribunal in the previous cases referred above , we understand that the form and .....ording of the bank Guarantee shall be as follows:

'1he bank guarantee it is issued in consideration of France releasing the Grand Prince , in relation to the incidents dealt with in the Order of 12 January 2.(Xl1 of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Paul arxl thai the issuer undertakes and guarantees to pay to France such sums, up to 206.149 Euros , as may be determined by a final and firm judgement or decision of the appropiate domestic forum in France or by agreement of the parties. Payment under the guarantee 'M)uld be due promptly after receipt by the issuer of a 'Mitten demand by the competent authority of France accompained by a certified copy of the final and firm judgement or decision or agreement."

40.- A:;; to the amount of the bond

Article 73.2 of the Convention requires that the amount of the bond must be reasonable.

The Tribunal , with occasion of the previous cases ("5aiga", "Camouco· and ''Monte ConftJ'"co") specified a number of relevant factors to be taken into consideration in an asessment of the reasonableness of bonds, which include; (a) the gravitity of the allegued offences; (b) the penalties imposed or imposable urxler the laws of the detaining Stale; (c) the value of the detained vessel and the cargo seized (e) the quantity of fish carried on board.

A:;; to the value of the vessel, we have evidenced that:

- it was bought in the price of 45.000.000.- Pesetas equal to 271.000 ElKOS

(document number:20) - irs market price is in the region of 360.000 Euros (documents numbers 17 and

18) 13


- the appraisal made by the French surveyor is near the cost of a new built ship of similar characteristics of Grand Prince. (documents numbers 19 and 20)

There are other several circumstances that should be take into account in this particular case, such as ;

-the shcrt quantity of fish carried on board (18 Tns) -that although the Captain had the intention to fish within the EEZ of the

Kerguelen, fact that we do not deny, he had dear instructions from the shipowner not fish in the said area.

- that this vessel was about to proceed to Brazil....tlere she had good possibilities to fish ullder a Brazil fishing licence.

- the attitude of full cooperation by the Captain , crew and shipowner of Grand Prince with the french authorities.

- that the correctionnel court of Saint Denis , ....tIich decision has been appealed, has impossed a fine to the Captain in the amount of 200.000 FF.

The result, is that even contemplating the VtOrst scenario for the shipowner, the final and finn decision of a domestic Court would be fully guaranteed by a bank guarantee in the amount of 206.149 Euros

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

41.- Grand Prince was detained 00 the 26 December 2.000 by the french authorities accused to fish within the EEZ of the Kerguelen Islands. (page 4 paragraph 4)

42.- At the time of the detentioo the vessel flied Belize flag . being both, France and Belize, parties to the Convention. (page 3 - paragraph 1)

43.- The Captain declared that although the vessel did not caten any fish in the area, he was in fact dispossed to fish, despite the dear instructions given to him by the shipowner not to enter in the zone. (page 4 - paragraph 5)

44.- The vessel had on board approximatelly 2 Tns of lobster 18 Tns of toothfish (page 4 - paragraph 8)

44.- The vessel was about to proceed to Brazil, were he had been allocated with a fishing licence.(page 7 - paragraph 22)

45.- By order nO 312001 of 12 January 2.001, the Court of first instance of Saint Paul confimed the seizure of the vessel, the fishing gear and materials, and the fish on board, fixing a bond for release of the vessel in the amant of 1,737,918 .70 Euros, to be posted in the fonn of certify cheque or bank cheque. The form of bank guarantee was not allowed. (pages 5 nj 6 - paragraphs 12 to 18, both inclusive)

"


46.- The said bond cannot be considered "reasonable" neither as to irs form , (as it not allCl'lW a bank guarantee) nor in reped of irs amount, as it exceeds three times de current market price of the vessel. (page 8- paragraph 31 , 32 and 33, pages 13, 14 and 15 , paragraphs 38, 39 and 40)

47.- Irrespectively of the unreasonableness of the bond, it happened that a few days after the said Order was notified , the Tribunal Correctiomel of Saint Denis , on the 23 January 2.001 , decided to confiscate the vessel and that the said decision was provisionally executed. (pages 7 and a. paragraphs 24 to 30, both inclusive, and pages 12 and 13 - paragraph 37)

48.- As result thereof the vessel could not be released by posting any kind of bond (reasonable or not) , and that she 'Nill remain detained 'hhilsllhe proceedings of appeal of the said decision are in course and a final and firm decision is pronounced.(page 8 -paragraph 28)

49.- Through said subterfuge or ''fraud of laW' France, in addition to having fIXed a unreasonable bond, has evaded the crucial and dear requirement of prompt release sanctioned lJ1der artide 73.1 of the Convention. (page 8 - paragraph 29 and and pages 12 and 13 - paragraph 37)

SO.- In the meantime, the infringment by France of article 73.1 is affecting very seriously , apart from the snipcwvner, the rights of third parties 'Nith interests on the vessel , such as the company 'Mlrkers (37 members of the Clew and 6 ashore) , suppliers, ship agents , reparators banks , etc... (page 10 - paragraph 34)

On the basis of the foregoing fads and statements of law, and after having been carefully studied and considered by the flag State the circumstances of this maller, I make the foil lowing;

so.- SUBMISSIONS

1.- To declare that the Tribunal has jurisdidion under article 292 of the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea to hear the present application .

2.- To declare the present application admissible.

3.- To declare that France failed to comply "With article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention, as the guarantee fixed for release of Grand Prince is not reasonable as to irs amount, nature or form.

4.- To declare that France failed to comply 'Nith article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention by having evaded the requiment of prompt release under this article by not

IS


allowing the release of the vessel upon the posting of a reasonable, or any kind, of guarantee alieguing that the vessel is confiscated and that the decision of coofiscation has been provissionally executed.

5.- To decide that France shall promplly release the Grand Prince upon the posting of a bond or other security to be determined by the Tribunal

6.- To determine that the bond or other serurity shall consist of an amount of t\W hundred and six thousand one hundred forty nine (200.149) Euros or ifs equivalent if French Francs.

7.- To detemine that the monetary equivalent to (a) 18tOO8s offish on board the Grand Prince held by the french authorities, and valued on 123.848 Euros (b) the fishing gear , valued on 24.393 Euros (c) the fishing materials valued on 5.610 Euros , totalising 153.851 Euros , shall be considered as seOJrity to be held or, as the case may be, retumed by France to this party.

8- To determine that the bond shall be in the form of a bank guarantee .

9.- To determine that the 'Mlf"ding of the bank guarantee shall , among other things, state the following:

A.- In case France retums 10 the shipo'Mler the concepts referred to under point 7 (of the present submissions):

'The bank guarantee it is issued in consideration of France releasing the Grand Prince , in relation to the incidents dealt with in the Order of 12 January 2.CXl1 of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Paul arxl that the issuer lX1dertakes and guarantees to pay to France such sums, up to 200.149 Euros , as may be determined by a final and firm judgement or decision of the appropiate domestic forum in France or by agreement of the parties. Payment under the guarantee 'htluld be due promptly after receipt by the issuer of a written demand by the competent authority of France accompained by a certified copy of the final and firm judgement or decision or agreement."

B.- In case France does not retum to the shipowner the concepts referred to under point 7 (of the present submissions):

"The bank guarantee il is issued in consideration of France releasing the Grand Prince , in relation 10 the incidents dealt with in the Order of 12 January 2.001 of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Paul and that the issuer undertakes and guaranlees to pay to France such sums, up to 52.298 Euros , as may be determined by a final and firm judgement or decision of the appropiate domestic forum in France or by agreement of the parties. Payment under the guarantee would be due promplly after receipt by the issuer of a written demand by the competent authority of France accompained by a certified copy of the final and firm judgement or decision or agreement."

16


10.- To determine that the bank guarantee shall be invoked only if the monetary equivalent of the seaJrity held by France is not sufficient to pay the sums as may be determined by a final and firm judgement or decision of the app(Opiate domestic forum in France.

21st March , 2.001

Agent"s Signature:

Alberto Pen varez

17


PART II

DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PLEADINGS

"

21st March , 2.001

DeIIgn~!e,j 0flItt c<'rUf'Ioos lhal; t:,:' 1.<r7 I'! ,oS e .;'~~.

(X' ~ k~ Wee

ANNEXES TO THE APPLICATION 23

Annex 1Authorization issued to Mr Penelas Alvarez by the Attorney General of Belize dated 15 March 2001 (reproduced infra under the title Documents – Authorizations)

Annex 1-1Letter from the Attorney General of Belize to the Registrar dated 15-March 2001 transmitting the authorization (not reproduced)


Annex 2Bill of Sale (in Spanish) (not reproduced), with:– Bill of Sale and Acceptance of Sale (in Spanish and English)

CONTRATO DE COMPRA Y VENTA S'1lL OF SALE AND ACCEPTANCE OF SALE

o.DcI .. Ia KAYE ~ ~·Ia KAYE"). _ .... VDSa. __ ""'YUUL'""i: N ......... ""'"'* .I~~. IaKAYE ·GiWm £BICE-...... _~If. _ .... v_ . ,..,., de J.qiIIro 3ELlZil: ea.. ... Na ..

~.- T)ro"v_

Ca.b .. 1'IIuca.· ... 1 ..... 39 , 67 1U' . ........ w..., ~~

~- / Tan""jo. ~p Hl, OC - T""",.. .. -, 669 . ...... 1m"' - , eO - - - , / " . ., .......... 2m

y CCIIIO. oIta>ibo""" *",K~ ... " ~ ~.-... / -.. -.--."'~ ..... ..... 1.I,io00bicru Tbi<o r Uln""pw. .., -- _ ..... ........ -

CONTRATO DE VENTA e.·-or s~.

,~ B"li.tlllXlli Cmt·rnr.UI, CC!Il! ~I& "' ......... ,.. vn."DEDCIItEr) _ obmi<iIio ~

__ ... VI:iIXIU1 .... _ ...... .. BELIZ3 . _. 1ocmoI...:iIoida Ia ...... ok CD: ... a~:r:. < CI "'CQ 'nu Ctt::S 10_ ..... _ .. lJi .r.si:l:~$ {1 ;.CCO. OCO r2S} ....,....- .... E.DC CCmSB"'I ~L CCHE ,... ...... ~ "','I,1TI ~ ... ",.........un..sc ""LooCO~) ~QUI"'" "..ec:Jcc . .. • .... ""'PtJaau.sDs"1 ... __ 1o

~ ~ ftClbo. J par 10 _ ~ I ..... CDNPRAOORES· ......... C!IIW...,.."" prcpi.s.d • .. ____ . ____ .............. _10 -..... ... '"LA ""YE" ad __ ..,toc...opM<joo,_ ~dII "ltN"VI>·. -..... .... VESD£DQJtES., ... vus.a.. ____ . ... __ _____ l'UIlC:>IAIa. vu:l1~ ..... ~

.-.bn-..1dr. ___ ~_ .... CClMJ'RADORES· '_6osi"*"' .. q".. __ . t pcc:ct ~w:r. .. ~ ... _ .. ____ .. ~_ ........... _ ....... ,....

1Wl.....r.",. "It NAVE" r cbIo _ .....:boIdo 1" II. monon...,... ~ ...,. ......... """ "It 1'1''' YE. = lin de ._ ... ..04VU111L ... __ ... __

On-rlmc:a. 0._, o.m..m~ _ ...... _10 ______ .. ...,_

ill -...-.. ... 10 oual. to-. """'Il'1o _ C--"" v,"'" 01 dla II __ ....... _ .:..0 ___ .... ..,. 2:zLc31ao oSaMilNa-.;..,IOI ____ • ._----_ ...... EI ScUo ~ dr. 10:1 VENDEDOREIIIIo.Qja'*> ........ dooa'.etlLO ... pnscl>C!a.so: TIooe-SMl .. ""~ ___ .... _ ... -


Annex 2 (continued)– Notarial Certificate of the Bill of Sale (in Spanish and English)

387867378

Notarizaci6n del Contrato de Venta NocariaI Coni!Ic:alIt vi no. IIll 01 $&10

ft xmAna. w,nn AP3'fijjA -------, _>1.,"""" ... _ ......... '~._ruIdona'.or"'-'SO ... ~ ,--" -

~~j,~ --",,'-----IC3J can ... ,10Sl IClCro3U1. PRO!(l \'~ GAK:U

"" ___ .",,VVClEIXlR ___ "_ .. _4 .. -. _____

II. "**,,""'-mo ___ "',,,: - ........ __ ....... 1>I~"f1 .... ~_~~.'l!ir't"U'."::~"":i'PL~"~

":"' ... "':.'!. -='! ':.:=:-:::. ~,,~"II. NAYE'".

~ '-'t. ... ~~~.::=:-~t::~-:~ .... ~~I.OIJ V(Noe:>oII£$ .... __ .. _

~~" f~':''':f';!'::''-::-'''''''(,''''-';''''Il0l<

mI-.,,-mi_ - ... ---........ -.. .::" .. "'-' • Od_ • ~--~ ..

- --


Annex 2 (continued)– Acceptance of Sale (in Spanish and English)– Notarial Certificate of Acceptance of Sale (in Spanish and English)

...... _----ACEPTAcrON DE CQMPRA

ACCE?TANC= Of SAL~

El ScsailO JOSE l!1.'«l3[, ij.4GDiI@iQ BRlJ4l'lDaZ I __ .!in, n:~ct!I o!tc ....... eld"'''-"'l

e~:!=-oier~~~~: VCIIU. y ;,. ~ .. Iii! 0/ JI!s...n.l

tkv.t-!1f\t'I

uCOlpOl"'..oe.IIm:~ PAn: CCJLTl.!1ffl9 IAL caRr , TIo't .. ~..,. ..

'" aai ~ 61 4POD§RAOO ..I • ..,)'O'Ii:ioon

porQl.!~ J 1= :W,)s 1ur(:l:1CS Iqw ACUTO LA COMPJ!.A Y!!. T'RASPASODE "b.NA~'"i: 1 L1.dI::l3~d;:at ~f ACar;r", .:!!:.", ~ ... ,~; "';_'''''_10:0 w .... IiIl" sa. ',':" ... C."....... '

F.:::lImd ___ __ "'~. _____ .19_ c.~. .. "",01 .11

Nota.<iuci6n de la Aceptaci6n de Ccmpr. No!uiu Cati::at~ of ACC!?ttna of S.!le ,

p,;!:..:~i1urJ; l!I! .... 1:u~. lilC\1t..a6.1 . .:::!r =' ..... ~:.a.:. ~-:,;c.d :.'1:1

J ~~~~~.' e:: .. , r'l.!~!n=!, r ti~:c en .• ~:eOli~. __ . _______ POR E~].lEOO Ce,HlFfCO CUE . c. FI-·_·_'" W~.:03 Y C!;:rr,y;:~J.t ..

~.f!!!!:~------.-.. --.-------- -G\I! cjWK:t zI pi!'de II ACE?TACiON DE CQC?"", " II .. _:0 ~-= .. -;c:." ..... r..:ol~~.::=:...cc=.rrA.~C

~Il:~~~!';~~~~~;.r. 19S3 ~~~)l'TJl!Q]~~ .... l{Jj3Z ___________ ....

~.::~ e.r::'.!::lI::'i):"':!~;;J,.I:Iro:itolu d. lU ~!r POI' oodtf I.mll .:f'chI Act?liCiS., 4 CQmpr<l .n r,;)r.!lr~ " '~F"O •• n", ;':~'C: "' ........ c\: ,,;; ...... :;.t::".<10 ol uS. o{~ of

J ~~' ~f II s.:;=t:"a~ pm.-C~Gj('ffi(!I..u....Q91lf..t-____ ~--I1'I:U 1r.lli""W~~

~:~ (lis~de ~tnr, ~ __ ~ .. . d, =:..~O§)'Su!oiO$:.\!,.;.J ~


Annex 2 (continued)English translation of Bill of Sale

3B7867373

NUMBER ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN

IN PONTE VEDRA, at my residence on March twenty.seventh of the year Two Thousand and One. -------•.•. -----

I, ED UARDO MENDEZ APENt: LA, Notary and member of the distinguished Association of Notaries of A Corulla do hereby certify that the following parties have appeared before me-----·------·----·------------------·-····--···-···-.. _. __ •••

MR. JOSE NOGUE IRA GARClA, oflegal age. married, domiciled in ArdAn Casas in the municipali ty of Marin, and bearer of National Identity Card number 35.277.482.----

MR. JOSE COSTA PR IETO, oflegal age, married, domiciled at Nuestra Seilora de la Sainta Street, number 10-2" Izq., in Orense and bearer of National Identi ty Card number 34.583. I 64-L.---------------------------------_. __ • __ • ___ · ____ --. __ • __ ._ •••••••• _

MR. JOSE MANUEL MAGDA.LENO FERNANDEZ, of legal age, married, domiciled in Goyan in the municipality of Tomifto and bearer of National Identity Card number 35.55 1. 170-R---------------___ • _________ • ____ ·._ •• _ •••• _. __ •••. •• _ ••• ____ ••

A) The first two parties intervene on behalf and in representation of the company " REA.RDON COMMERClAL CORP.", of Belize nationality, with main offices in 35 A regent Street, Belize City, founded on 14 May 1999 before the Registered Agent Morgan & Morgan Trust Corporation (Belize), registered under number I 0680. -----------_. ____ • ________ •• ___ ._ ••••••• __ • ________________ • _______ _

Pursuant to the Power of Attorney g ranted on 22 September 1999 before Plinio Valdes, Eleventh Notary Public of the Circuit of Panama, in which among other acts, authorises them to " ... sell .... or to dispose of in any other way, property or real estate belonging to the Company whether it be corporeal or incorporeal". This is derived from said Power of Attorney, which I have at sight, in witness whereor, I certiry that nothing or what has been omitted changes in any way the text that has been inserted, and the appearing parties have guaranteed that their authority remains in rorce, and that no changes have been made in the legal capacity o r the Company which they represent.-------------·--··-----·-·-··--·------------------------------

B) And the latter intervenes on behalf and in representation of the company "'PAlX COMM.ERCIAL CORP" of indefinite duration, domiciled in 35 A Regent Street, Belize City, founded on I January 2000 before the Registered Agcnt Morgan & Morgan Trust Corporation (Belize), registered under number 12968. ______________ _

Pursuant to the Power of Attorney, granted on 24 March 2000 before Boris Sucre Martin, Notary Public Number Eight of the Circuit or Panama, in which among other acts, authorises them to " ... selJ .... or to dispose of in any other way, propeny or real estate belonging to the Company whether it be corporeal or incorporeal". This is


derived from said Power of Attorney, which I have at sight, in witness whereof, I certify that nothing of what has been omitted changes in any way the text that has been inserted, and the appearing parties have guaranteed that their authority remains in force, and that no changes have been made in the legal capacity of the Company which they represent

In Ihis sense:

I . They exhibit a document written in the Spanish and English, consisting of two pages; the appearing parties proceed to sign this instrument, in my presence, specifying that: a.' They are familiar wi th the contents of said document. b.- And, of their own free will and voluntarily they wish that the applicable effects take place, in accordance with what has been established by foreign law.

2. I, the Notary, proceed to legitimise the signatures affixed by the appearing parties to this instrument.

1. And a photocopy of which I attach to this original.

I have read the aforementioned to the appearing parties and fully aware of the content, they ratify the instrument and sign with me, the Notary, and in witness whereof, I certify that they have identified themselves by means of the above-mentioned National Identity Cards and the rest of the contents drawn up in this act, consisting of lwo pages ofscries lG,numbers 1044407 and this page. The signalures and endorsements of the appearing parties are included herein.· Signed: E. Mendez, endorsed and seal affixed . ••••••• -.----.-

PROCESS- Served by me, the Notary, to verify that on the same day as the authorisation of the foregoing act, I proceed 10 attach this photocopy of the instrument of "Notarisation of the Bill of Sale" to legitimise the signatures of the appearing parties, and corresponding to the bill of sale and acceptance of sale which has been attached to the present instrument . ----------------------------------------.------------------------------------

I, the Notary, DO HEREBY BEAR WITNESS TO all of which is included on two pages of series 3G, numbers 1044408 and this page.- Signed: E. Mendez endorsed and seal affixed-------------------------··----·--·---·---------------•• -.---••••• ---•• --.-.-----------

ATTACHED DOCUMENTS


Annex 2 (continued)English translation of Acceptance of Sale

ACCEPTANCE OF SALE

THIS AGREES WITH THE ORIGINAL NUMBER EXPRESSED IN THI S GENERAL PROTOCOL. AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMPANY PAlK COMMERCIAL CORP, I ISSUE THI S COpy IN FIVE PAGES OF SERIES 38 NUMBER SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY·SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY· TI-£REE, THE FOLLOWI NG IN CORRELATIVE ORDER, SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY· SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY -SEVEN, THE FOLLOWING LN CORRELATIVE ORDER AND THIS PAGE fN PONTEVEDRA, ON THE SAME DAY AS THE AUTHORLSATION. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.

Apostille (OR legitimisation) Convention de la Haye du 5 Octobre 196 1 (Royal decree 2433/ 1978 of October 2101

)

I . Country : Spain This public document

2. Has been signed by EDUARDO MENDEZ APENELA 3. Acting in the capacity ofNolary 4. Bears the seal ofthe Notary

Ccnilied S. In Moana 6 . On 17 January 200 1 7. By Jose Luis Espinosa de Soto, Proctor of the Distinguished Association of

Notaries of La Coruna. 8. Number 6091 9. SeaVStamp 10. Signature:


Annex 3Provisional Patent of Navigation of the Grand Prince

INTERHAllONAl YERCHANT MARINE REGISTRY Of" IIELiZE

"IMMARBE" IIlGIS'TWATION 0' MEIICHANT I.HIf'IACT. 1 ... ~l 'ATfNT Of NAYIOATlOH

PflEVIOUS NATJOt.IAI..ITY

TYPE OF RAOIO EOUIPIoIEN"r. ___ RAD:::='OCTEc::L:'C"'CO::cNE:... _ _ ___________ _

ENTITV RESPON$IBt.E FOR RAOIOACCOI.HTS: __ RAOI"'''''OCIlOl.WID''''''''''''''BC·VC· _ ___ ____ _

COMPl.ETE AOORESS OF ENTITY POSTBUS ~ -lOO8 AS ROlTUOAM (HOt.lJ.ND)

RESPONSI9lE f OR RADIO ACCOUNTS:,,"'''' ... ''',.., .. ''',.,''''''''T'r,,-_______ _ MORGAN &: MORGAN tRUST CORP. (DEOZE) LTD. RESIOENT AGEN"r.

SEE RSlUNO CONDITIONS ON REVERSE SlOE OF PATEI'ff

CONTROL N" 02 • 000492


VESSU SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL FISHING AND SHAll COMPLY wrrn ALL FISHING REQUERlMEm'S AND REGULATIONS APPUCABLE TO 1HE SPECIFIC FISHING AREA. F AlLURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN A PENAL TV UP TO USSSO,OOO.OO DEPENDING ON 1HE SERIOUSNESS OF 1HE OFFENCE AND RELAPSING COUlD LEAD TO 1HE EX -OFFICIO CANCEUATION OF STATIJS.


Annex 4Crew list

CREW LIST VESSEL" GRANO PRINCE"

CARGO NAME-$URNAME NAT10NALITY

1 CAPTAIN RAMON FCC. ~REZ NOVO .. 'ANISK

2 1st OFFICIAL ANTONIO SEVILLA LUSTRES SPANISH

3 CHIEF ENGEENIR PERFECTO PINTOS FONTENLA .PANlSH

• 1st ENGEENIR ISAAC NOGUEIRA SUCETA SPANISH

5 21'1d ENGEENIR JORGE G6NzAlez PIREIRO SP,.,...H

• 1. COOK CARLOS COYA PIfi/eIRO SPAtoISH

7 2ndCOOO HERIBERTO lUIS AlVAREZ aUICEl ..:HtLEAN

8 OVERSEER JOAQUiN M MARTINEZ SAYANS ........ • 2nd OVERSEER MARCELINO SCHONFEElDT MILLACU C"'-£AN

10 OVERSEER JUAN JOS£ AGulN SABOR SPANISH

11 2nd OVERSEER JUAN CARLOS UONTOTO AREAN .I"AHtSH

12 SEAMEN CARLOS LOVEIRA COSTAS ....... 13 SEAMEN PABLO ALEJANDRO SILVA HERRERA CHILEAN

" SEAMEN MARCEL A.. CANAlES FARIAS CHILEAN ,. S ..... N MIGUEL E. SANCt-IEZ ROGEL CHILEAN ,. SEAMEN CARLOS A. GUZMAN MUIil:OZ CHILEAN

17 SEAMEN CRISTIAN EMILIO TORRES SAN MARTIN CHILEAN

18 SEAMEN JUAN ENRIQUE AlVAREZ olAz CHILfAN ,. SEAMEN BALDINO s . CHAVEZ HERNANDEZ CHilEAN

20 SEAMEN EMILIO ALEX SARRlA GONZALEZ CHILEAN

21 SEAMEN JUAN ClAUDIO VlLJ.ARROEL TENER CHILEAN

22 SEAMeN JORGE P. ARAOENA OIAZ CHILEAN

2J SEAMEN JULIO A. UBeDA. HERNANDEZ ct<i, .....

" SEAMEN SIXTO A. AI...MONACID ALMONACIO CHILEAN

2. SEAMEN MANUEL R OYARZO CARDENAS CHILI!AN

2. SEAMEN ClAUDIO HARDY RUIz HEINZ CH ......

27 SEAMEN CRISTJAN A. CAICOMPAI SANTANA CHILEAN

2. SEAMEN HERNAN t£NRY URIBE z..t.NZANA CHILEAN

2. SEAMEN IvAN ROORIGO BELIZAR ZUMELZO CHILEAN

30 SEAMEN ANOR~S FREDY GUALA OJEDA CHILEAN

31 SEAMEN CL'oUOlO IVAN GUALA OJEDA. CHILEAN

32 SEAMEN MARCELO A. olAz VARGAS CHILeAN

33 SEAMEN MARCO A.. SilVA I-fERRERA CHILEAN .. SEAMEN NEFTAU SEOUNDO LAVAOOS VERA CHIl.£AN

35 SEAMEN MARCOS AUGUSTO PINOCHET M. c ........ 38 SEAMEN MARK) A. FARIAs CARGAGEMA. CHtCEAN

37 SEAMEN ERWIN FERNANDO SARRIA 8AEZ CHO£AN


Annex 5Procès-verbal d’appréhension nº 05/00 (fish catch) (in French)

DOC . 51 PROCES VERBAL D ' APPREHENSI ON OF

THE VESSEL

MARINE NATIONALE

FORCE D'ACTION NAV ALE

COMMANDEMENT MARITIME DE NOUVELLE CALEDONIE

FREGATENIVOSE

PRQCES VERBAL P' APPREHENSION

N" OS 1 00 NlYOSE

• L' an deux mille, Ie mardi 26 deeembre 2000, • Nous, soussigne Gilles DEPELLEY, capitaine de corvette, commandant en second de la fr.!gale de surveillance «NlVOSE», en action de police des p&he!,

Vu : • La loi du ler mars 1888 modifi.!e, relative Ii I'exercice de la p&he dans les eawt SOU! souverainet.! ou juridiCiion fran~se s' ete:ndant au large des cales des temloires d'outre mer; • La loi 66-400 du 18 juin 1966 $Ur I'exercice de la p&he maritime et de I'exploitalion des produiu de la mer dans les Terres Australes et AntarCliques F~ • La loi nO 83-582 du 5 juillet 1983 modifi.!e, re lalive au regime de la wsie et completant la liSle des agents habilit~ I. constater les infractions dans Ie domaine des peches maritimes, . Ie decret nO 84-846 du 12 septembre 1984 fixant les modalit~ d ' application de la loi 83-582 s.,uvisee;

Nous trouvant .. bord du «GRAND PRINCE» , I. la position GPS: ~,. 1< J. SUD, Of l ' 2 (, 1 EST, agiS$lflI pour faire suite I. I'infraction de p&he &ans aUlorisation dans la

ZEE de KERGUELEN I. la position G PS 4P41' SUD, 073°44' EST, en route au 250 I. 0 1 (un) TIOluds, Ie mardi 26 d6cembre 2000 • 08h53 Echo, infraction constatk par Ie PV N"04I NIVOSE en date du mardi 26 d6cernbre 2000, .!tabli • I'encontre de M. RAMON FRANCISCO PEREZ NOVO, n.! Ie 05/ 10157 Ii RIBEIRA, capitaine du navire "GRAND PRINCE",

D6clarons prodder I. I'apprehension sur Ie Navire "GRAND PRINCE", pon d'lttlche BELIZE, des objets .!num.!r~ ci-dessous :

ProsIujts de la neche

_ IS (quinze) tonnes de l.!gine congelk (_18°C (moins dix-huit degrts Celsius) dans la soute 6igorifique , ituee au fond du baleau, SOUle I. - 27"C (mains vingt sepl degrts Celsius», .2,5 (deux el demies) tannes de l.!gine muche situee dans deux des trois tunnels

1/2


et, en Ia presence constanle du capilaine, apposons les scdIes sur Ies objets apprehendes.

Nous h1i IlOlifions I' apprehension et Ie dklarons gardien des objets apprehendes. Une traduction en espagnol • ete effectuee par Ie patron des peches Antonio SEVILLA LUSTRES, membre de I'equipage du navire "GRAND PRINCE",

Fait 1 bord du "GRAND PRINCE", le mardi 26 decembre 2000 liMO bc:ures (E).

Le commandant Le capitaine de fi'egate Marc LANNE,

""nm"""m I, r~, N1VOSE

~ Le capilaine de corvetl~ i'~, ~~PELLEY,

commandant en second ~e E

[ 1 Transmis au directeur depanemental des affaires maritimes de La Reunion Ie


Annex 6Procès-verbal d’appréhension nº 07/00 (navigation and communication equipment) (in French)

MARINE NATIONALE DOC , el PROCES VERBAL D' APPR!:IU:" Slotl o r

THE NAVIGATIOMAL EQUIPMENT FORCE D"ACTION NAVALE

COMMANDEMENT MARITIME DE NOUVELLE CALEOONIE

FREGA TE NIVOSE

PRQCES VERBAL P ' APPREHENSION

N"' 07 1 QQ NIYOSE

- L 'an deux mille, Ie mardi 26 decembre 2000, - Nous, soussigne Gil]es DEPELLEY, capitaine de corvette, commandant en scoond de la fregate de surveillance .. NIVOSE», en action de police des pkhes,

Vu • • La lei du Itt man 1838 modifi6e, relative 1 I' exen:ice de la peche dans les caux SOUl lIOuvenlinete ou juridiction ~ s' e.:endant au large des dlln des tenitoires d ' outre mer; - La]oi 66-400 du ]8 juin 1966 sur rexercice de la p6che mari time et de rexploitation des produiu de I, mer dan. In TerTe5 Australes et Antarctiques FrIfM;aises, - La loi n" 83-512 du 5 juillet ]983 modifiee, relative au regime de ]a sai~ et oomple.:ant la liste des agents habilite. 1 c::onstattt les infi1K:tions dans Ie domaine des p&::hes maritimes, • Ie d6cret n· 84-846 du 12 septembre 1914 finnt let modaIites d ' application de Ia kIi 83-582 susvi~,

Nou. Irouvam 1 bord du .. GRAND PRINCE» , 11a posi tion G PS: (1" .!(,l SUD, 013" Z<" EST, agissant pour raire llUite 1 I' infraction de p&::he sans autorintion dans la

ZEE de KERGUELEN 11a position GPS 47"41' SUD, 073 Q44' EST, en route au 2SD. 0] {un} noruds, Ie mardi 26 d6cembre 2000 1 D8h5) Echo, inmction constat6e par ]e PV ~ NlVOSE en date du manti 26 dOcembre 2000, etabI.i II; I' encontre de M .. RAMON FRANCISCO PEREZ NOVO, ne ]e 05/ 10157 • RIBElRA. capitaine du navire "GRAND PRINCE",

Dec]arons preceder' I'apprehension des objets enumeres ci-deSlou.:

Mal6rid de nayjlAljoo ct de tBnSmjssjog

- Un emetteur-r6cepteur MFIHF ICOM ]C-M 7lD, - Oeu.x. OPS FURUNO, - Un RADIO METEO FURUNO, - Un.andeur CVS 8831 KODEN, - Un sondeur FURUNO, - Un RADAR FURUNO RDPI06, - Un televiseur, - Un NA VTEX NCR 300 A,

112


- VnFAX telephone INMARSATFURUNOFELCOM 81 , - Deux ordinateurs (en passereUe) (disque dur HRE) avec modem + imprimante. - Un LORAN GPS 6700 APELCO, - Un RADAR SIMRAD.

Documems de bord

), ..... ~ .. ~ ... -~ - I !n;j0'· ..... 1 de navigation cornmun au journal de bord, - Vne liste d'equipage, - T rente cinq passepons, - I feuiUe d'impression dujournal de p&:he (PC PasserelJe) - modes d'emploi des appareils situes en passerelle, - cinq cartes de visite de shipshandlers, - six. cahiers a spirale contenant des informations diverses et sch6na.s, - un releve de deux positions de baIise, - La patente de navigation, - Une licence radio, - Une pochette contenant divers certificats (certificats de jauge. de radiotelepboniste de securite), - Trois classeurs d'archives, - Liste de numeros de telephones imprimes depuis Ja passerelle, - Vne cane nmr 4711 (sur laquelle la position du GRAND PRINCE a 111104 LAT 47°46'S, LONG 073°44' E) a ere reponee et signee par Ie capilaine, - Une liste des declaration des appareils de communication et eJectroniques derenus par Ie personnel du bord, - Une liste de tabac et alcools derenus a bordo

et, en la presence constante du capitaine. apposonsles sccllb sur les objets apprehendes. Nous lui notifions I' apprehension et Ie declarons gardien des objets apprehernies. Vne traduction en espagnol a ere effectuee par Ie patron des p&:hes Antonio SEVILLA LUSTRES, membre de I'equipage du navire "GRAND PRINCE".

Fait a bord du "GRAND PRINCE", Ie mardi 26 dicembre 2000 Ii lco" heures (E).

Le commarulam Le capitaine de fregate Marc LANNE,

w~

[ 1 Transmis au direaeur depanementai des affaires maritimes de La Reunion Ie


Annex 7Procès-verbal d’appréhension nº 06/00 (fishing gear) (in French)

DOC . 7" PROCES VERBAL D'APPREHENSION OF

'rHE FISHING GEAR

MARINE NATIONALE


COMMANDEMENT MARITIME DE NOUVELLE CALEDONIE

FREGA TE NrvOSE

PROCES VERBAL D' APPREHENSION

N" 06 1 00 NIVOSE

- L' an deux mille, Ie mardi 26 d6cembre 2000, - Nous, soussigne Gilles DEPELLEY, capitaine de corvette, commandant en second de la rregate de surveillance «NlVOSE», en action de police des peches,

Vu : - La loi du ler mars 1888 modifiee, relative iI I' exercice de la peche dans les caux sous souverainete ou juridiction fran~se s'h:endant au large des cOtes des tenitoires d 'outre mer; - La loi 66-400 du 18 juin 1966 sur I'exercice de la peche maritime et de I'exploitation des produits de la mer dans les Terres Australes et AntarCliques Fran~ses,

- La loi nO 83-582 du 5 juillet 1983 modifiee, relative au regime de la saisie et complelant la liste des agents habilitk iI constater les infractions dans Ie domaine des peches maritimes, -Ie deeret nO 84-846 du ]2 septembre ]984 fixant les modalites d 'applicalion de la loi 83-582 susvisee;

Nous trouvant iI bord du «GRAND PRINCE» , Ii la position GPS: 4 ! . .!.;; f. SUD, 07:1 Q 2 of, -' EST, agissant pour faire suite a I' infraction de peche sans au torisation dans la

ZEE de KERGUELEN a la position GPS 47"4T SUD, 07)°44' EST, en route au 250 iI 01 (un) nceuds, Ie mardi 26 d6cembre 2000 a 08h53 Echo, infraction constatee par Ie PV N"04/ NIVOSE en date du mardi 26 d6cembre 2000, etabli iI I'encomre de M . RAMON FRANCISCO PEREZ NOVO, ne Ie 05/10/57 iI RIBElRA, capitaine du navire "GRAND PRINCE".

Declarons proceder a I'apprehension sur Ie Navire "GRAND PRINCE", port d'attache BELIZE, des objets enumeres ci-dessous ;

Engins de peche :

- 5 bouees oranges numerotees de 2 a 5 et une bouee ponant inscription · C· equipees de matereaux et boitiers a batterie, - 24 (vingt quatre) bouees roses ponant I'inscription · POL YFORM N 6001 ALESUND MADE [N NORWAY" sur la partie bleue, - 5 bouees oranges avec mat et avec dispositif lumineux numerotees 2, 3, 4, 6 et une sans numero sur lesquelles est inscrit "75 DYNOPLAST AS ALESUND MADE IN NORWAY", • 10 ancres de fond , • 180 cagettes d;apfat,s grees sur ~amewns dans lisnes de palangre. _ 4D (u. , ....... r~ I-~.,~ ... "Q ";;F~ c.,., ,r..:s.

112


Mllerid etectronjQue et t!ectriQue de P&be ;

• Deux detecteurs de Balises KODEN·KSS 131 , • Logements pour 12 lampes de bouCes dont 9 soot en place, • 7 batteries pour bouees gonia ( S de marque MOLL, 2 de marque TUDOR), - 7 antennes fouet sur I chargeur de 10, antennes sur lesquelles est inscrit un numero au marqueur, sur lesquelles est 81''0'6 un auue numero et sur certaines figure l'inscription "GRAUTA R.ESP. IIR(Bt. • 9 lampes sur un support et un canon de 1ampes pour bouees.

et, en 1a presence constante du capitaIDe. apposons les scelles sur les objets apprihendes.

Nous lui notifions I'apprehension et Ie declarons gardien des objets apprehend6s. Une traduction en espagnol a ~6 etTectuCe par Ie patron des p&:hes Antonio SEVILLA LUSTRES, membre de I'equipage du navire -GRAND PRINCE". Fait a bord du "GRAND PRINCE". Ie mardi 26 d6cernbre 2000 i LdCOheures (E).

Le oortl!Nndan!; Le capitaine de frtgate fo,1arc LANNE,

~ Le capitaiDe de corvelle .

commandant en second de I

L' auteur du detit

[ 1 Transmis au directeur depanemental des affaires maritimes de La Reunion}e

112


Annex 8Procès-verbal d’interpellation of 11 January 2001 (master) (in French)

PARQiIET DU TRIBUNAL UE GRA!'I.'DE INSTANCE DE SAINT· DENIS

PRocES. VERBAL J) 'lNTERPEUA TlON

U 11 j!llvitr :W(ll

~ant NOllS, C ll iSlian L.:I, tJQl fE, :o;Ubstilul de Munsiew Ie PrlX1.l reur de III Republiqu,> pr~s

It Tribunal de Gw,nde iom nca de SAJNT DE.II,'IS en prt~!'l.:e de MUe V A.R. Sophie inlerpI~;e en espagnol. (~ennent pr~sJablemenl prtt~) CSI dtf6ree la per>O!lnc qui, sur inl! rpellll.t:ol<, nous foumil les !<'me:gnO:OItnl;; didenU!~ 5ah II RIS

NOM PRENOM NELE OOMICP..c f'ROFESSION S111JATION Fi,"-\iIUA.LE NATIONALn-E CONDA.t..INA TIONS

: PEREZ NOVO : RamoD Francisco : OS o('tobre 1957 a RIDElRA : RlBEIR"a. (E!pagoe) lUll DA CAB"uLEJRA 10 Ribdr:l : Capihl.ine de Navlre : Marie : Espagnole : 51l dit janlais (ondamllt

Vll ies p;O<'e~-verball;or 11 6 09/Lf)n! P.c.O " Ls. Jonquille' de la Gn<!Gnu~rie Itwrilime,

NOlls lui dOMon:, wu .... i!.saocc d:s f .. its qui lui som r.:proch~s :

I ) d ' a\'oir c"u~nt dectmbre :!.OOO et .II.otammtttt a compler du 2~ dk embre 2000, depui5 ttmp~ DOflllrdCril, Il;.iru la .:;une IXullomique il!xdtlSive deS OOte5 :iu ternloire de I:J Rcpublique, ~!l. I't'spicoe ~u lall:e des Des Kerguelen, dans Ie.~ Terns Auslral~ et AntlirUqueS rr;"u;aisc:s , etant (apitaibe du ns,il,t '" U: grand P~';DCfl"_ baltartt ll:lliilon ctranger (BE.LIZE), onus dt ~ignlllf: r SC'ID II!lItr~ dan.) III zOlle c!rooonlique e.~c1usiH: 1'1 de dc!clarer Ie tonnagc de poiss(ln diteDu:'t b(lrd,

I 'ail pril'USet rePrllneS ill' article J d~ 1& toi o1u 01 /03/ 1888 modifiii tlar la wi du 05juille.1 1996, Its articles 1, 1, 4, 9, 11 de 111 du 18juiD 1966 lnodifih par la loi liu 18 nOl'embre 1997 eot les :lrtlch~$ 2 eI 4 01'1 la lui 83-582 du 05 juiUet 1933,

IT) d' al'oi r ulllrllnr diC('nlhre 2000, nGlammt:1J1 du 24 au 26 d~cmbr~ 2000, dej)uis temps non PrN,~rit, daBS la zone tl;conomique tJl:ciush'e des cota du tt.r rltolr, de la R~pllllilque, tn I'tspCcc au la'1l:e des IIes KERGUELEN dans Irs 'l'crres AIISlrale5 et An.lartiques rraD~isel, elan! capitame du na~·il :t.-*\b~altant pavilion itrAager (Belize), pMltiqu6 J" pedae sans a \'o~.rt~atiM prt.'\Iablf du Autoriltti compete-otes.

rait pr"lvus el n\pri.nc.~ a I' lU1.ide 1 de /a loi du 01!03/1888 ruoo1ifie par la loi dl1 05 Juillet 1996, Ics al1.idu 1, Z. 4, 9, 11 de IA du 18juin 1966 lUodifi£-e par la Joi du 18 no\"en\bro l997 1'1 les articJai 2 el 4 de la 101 83-5S1 du tiS jUl1l1:1 1983.


l.e (omparaD.t declare:

Je rec:onDais les infractionS mists a mOD compte. En rrvam:hr mOil action de p«be iIIigale a Mbutt a c(lmpter du 26 dktmbrt 2000 et non It 24 df«mbn corome rt'lenn danS la prhemwn, ConUlie It jour.llal de na, ig:!tion st d6!urait iI 10. date du 23 .:Ieccmbn 2000, nous n'avoos P~1S eu Ie temps de reoseigner Ie nom'taIt Jouroal de na\'Jgatlol! qui f,tait eufermt daDS unc annoirc, Jc n'nvais r~u de quil!onque aucllne llIstruction prieise p01lr entamrr une acUon de pC('.hc en woe iuttrdite.

NOWi a,ertiSSClj~ i':uttressr qu'il a droit de choisir un avot!at Oil de delllander qll'il lui en soit designe UD d'offi ce_

II nous repond :

Xje ~ouhaile ftre asslste d'un avocal de 111011 choix : Maitre A.~'TOI~E du Ban-tau de Saini-Denis

No\1S mentiouoons que:

X Maitre A.\'TOINE :! pu rommulliqUtf lib re.m~nt a' ('{" Ie cllnlllar.mt

COMPARUTION PAR PROcrS· VERBAL

\ ·u les artic1ts 388, 393, CI .~ui"al1l~ du CPP, Noil.'i ItViSml'i I' inl~rt~~c !.jue par 1I1'oces-verbal de ce jour, il sera cite it (omparw:rt. des chefs de qualification sU$-fise, a I'~udien('e du Tribunal C'orreclionotl qui St tltlldra Ie:

MARDI 23 JANVlER2001 ~ OS hellrtS,

NOlls !nfonuOI}S l'inlerffie que DuUS Ie traduisODS immediat(:ruent M~~lnle Ie ~!agi5 llll l

dtlrgue pour que SGil priS a son enclIntre une nll~l1re de COII'rult judidairt,

L-\ PlU:SENTE NOTIFICATION VALANT CITATION A PERSONNE

"'pus lechlre, Ie preveuu signt a\'t!(: Nuus

LE SUBS'l'lTUT

Ch.LAUQtrE R~u cupit integra Ie U : PREVE"11


Annex 9Procès-verbal de saisie nº 13/AM/2001 (vessel) (in French)

REPUllLlQUE FRANCAISE PREfECTURE DE LA RE UNION

Direction Rt~/Onal ct dcpartemcntak Des Affllites Maritimes

It. DlRECTEIIR

N<43/A.'V2001 PROCES VElmAL DE S.-\ISI£

Yu J.o. kri du ler rMrl 1 S88 !OOdifiCc rcblj\'t a I'cxcrejcc de Ja p&.he dans Ies caux. sous $Oullet1linet~ 01.1 .iuridictiofl frarII;ai.e s'B.enda!\llSu large des lerrilo~s d'out.re InN ;

Vu Ia !oi n°66--400 d:J 18 juin 1966 modifiCe l ur l'excrcicc: de Ia ~~ rr.aritimc: Ci

l't:Xploilal~n des produils de Ja mo:r dalls lees Tr.res Au~raks cl Antatttiqucs Fra~aises ;

Vu III Ioi n"83-;82 dll 5 juillct 1983 I1'$/d i66c rcbtiw Bit rlogimc de 1.1 sai.,ic: et compJ~talll !II ~t", d~ atC:11h h,.Wj L~ 4 const&.ter Ics iltfiactions dans It- domail.le des *-hcs Iwilimel: ;

Vu Ie d«m W84~846 du 12 5C'plembre 1984 fuQr/t )(.s modcliles d'l1pplicalion de In IoJ prkit&: ;

\11.1 Ie proe~ VeI!xll d' in.fr'l!ction N° 4!OO du 26 decern.lre 2000 dres,e 0: l'enconlIe de MCllSiew: RanAlli FIttJ.\Ci$oo PEREZ NOVO nele 5 o)ctobrc 1957 fI RlBBRA (EspIliut'), eapitaioe du navin> r.GR.'\ND PR1N(,E '" baltllnt pavilion du BELlZE illJ Il'K)tnell.t des !cit~ cel Etat ayant rndil Ie :a GRAND PRJNCE '* de SCl r\jgistm A III S4:ite de ceue infrllrtior .. ayam pow: arm3teut PAIK COM.MrRC1AL CORPORATION! BELIZE. pdf Ie CIIpitai.!~ dto tf~te Mire LAl\'NE. Mmm.1l\ilaru h tT~(!:lre NIVOSF"

-pour aclion ~ peche illicltel:!ans ks caux dcs Tcrres A..l~tr3IC's et AturCtiQues fho;;aisr. s,

·pour non dkb r4tion d~ :>!:Ill. totJ~ en zone eco)nomique S$us juridictior. fraJ\~aise.

CONSIUERAN1 que IH udi-aclions sont carsctensees par Ies fuiu ~ui\'aIl!S :

1/ Const.!l.:UltJO Je 1J priscncl: du navirc tlORAND PRINCE )t en action dc p6:he l rint~rie>.u

de Ia ZOllo! kononUque ~aik pM': 7- 49"SOO et 0730 4:5' E«( 9:5 nriDes au !"lOrd nordlest de KC'rguelen Ie :6 d~cembrC' 2000 6 8 II 58"

2J COllSl8Ul.linn de J'lI.b:'.t"rlCtc de declaration d'tmrlt.:-.:-o ZF.F ,\,;: Kerguelen.

31 Con~lItft !ion de Ia pr';:;.=ncc a "CI1U J'une pal:w.gn::, x.:l iollnfc pAl' I.: bard lors du ,un",,1 par l'oclicoplCrc, ~t II 500 metres du M\'\It de rnateriel de PO;Chc: idCfItique iI celui du GRANT) PRINCE


41 PrtsencC dw 1'lSinc cit; 200 Cl{:tlltS d'ippits ~ secroctrs sur ~ ~nsi ~~

''''' SJ eonswatioa de II ~ de 161egiDts &aiches:i ptoXll'JlC du ~lt de n:m)nt!'t' de pallngre, de 10 II'JM m coursdc Itva~c dans UIl bee, de j Iliine:l &aid!':s dms un ~~ baI:

1l CUlI>lllAiun!ll: 11 ~"'c do:.54 ClIIOns de poiwlo it des ter.l!)!fJ:I\:ICS w!n;lIis.::> mm.' ! dtilrt eI - 12 d!'jp'~ JIJIS Io.'S (utll'ds <It C(I:'IgelatiM

II Consalilion dt Lo. ptdeoc~ d'a;\Wn 18 ~Ik ~itJ:, bold

Vu Ie ~s 1'ab\I d'~nsioo.du nam N" 7/00 du 26 db:emlu 1000, eubE i fissue du pro..-i1 ..... -erbll d'in5-aef.oo pr6cilt par Ie capitline d¢ fitgatt ~ I.ANNB ! r en..-oll!re du capilaint Ra.wn fra. .. "isoo PEREZ NOVO, du. rJalUC t Gfv~,'{D PRfNC£*.

DECO!::

OF-CIDE que k naIVe sera ~ladi qlOlia.z POl! dti ,~kt5" i.e IIlIIVe poUlTl etre ~c 5!11' ordre du co~ du Pon 1h.'S GUllo

~~ l()!idiremr:n. lte1~ lumenl FI'IICcis;:o PEREZ NOVO ct ratlTW~ur d .. GR.oIJ\'O PRINCE lardiens de b saWr ju:.qu" ce qu'odlt >bi! dom": \,~ dNOIItel .

INFOR.\lE tv! R:I.'lOII fr:lIlc~o I'E.REl >lOVO et !'3mnteur q:lli l'Nin levee dc b $aisle

rofUrn&l~ It lllvUC "OP.AND PRINCE. PO\:Jl1 ht: prOOo)J1C« par 1e.<IICt d ' ~r;;;, ~~ SlIilll-hu! rome \'t~ dr- II Oil/l inn dtmt td.IH:i aur~ fi.\i Ie mmll.ml en l"mII d: rarticlc L 112 du c.)(]e do! pto.:.idIll"C pt!ll\e "

Ey£lut It$ h lldc CellC pr;>eCdI.lle it 5 000 fr~ (762 £uros) qui se.'tIIlIl b.~ do contrcvtnllll


Annex 10Procès-verbal de saisie nº 11/AM/2001 (fishing material) (in French)

REl'UBLlQUE fRANCA ISE PREFECTURE DE LA REUNION

Direction Regional Ct d~part.:mcnUlk Do:s AlI'lirco; MantUnes

Lc DlRECTEUR

N"f~/AM!lOOl PROCES VERnAL Oil: SAlSlE

Vll. 13 loi du ler ~ 1SS8 Dlodifite rclAti\C:" \'exexice JI! !a pi:cbc dans !cs calIX sous souveraiaete ou juridieoon tl.ln~aiu s'tlCndant au I&ge des h::mlOiro;:s d'uu:re !!\I,.""r ;

Vu \a Ioi )1°66-400 du [g jilin 1966 modwtc sur l'exercice .ie 13 p«:h~ maritime et h:;),:ploitAtior: des produits de Ia mer dMs k:s Terres AUSlrales et ArllarCl.i\j.UO;:S f'mr~s;

VLL!:'\ !oi n083-5g2 dl! 5 juiUet 1983 modific!e rci:l.! ivc au rogirr.e de la !.:Ii~i~ et complttll."".1 b. liste des agents habilifCs a COMtatcr les infractior..;; dans Ie domaine des piches lnru'ituntS ,

Vu Ie dCCl'ct N"84·t46 du 12 .$epfembre 1984 fixant les modoiliees d'applicaticll d~ 13 loi precitec ;

\'\1 1: p~s v .. rbAl d' infraI:tion a !'e;lCOntte de Mons~\lr Ie 5 octobre 1957 i RlDEL'Ll, (Esp;!l~), c4pituinc: du p<l.villon du BELIZE 3\,1 moment d~ tailS, eel £bl i » de s:cs registres 3. Ia suite de cette infr:tCtlOl1, l1)'IUlt pour ann:u c:ur P AlK Cm.-fMERCtAl CORPORA TfON a BELIZE. par Ie ta?w.e d~ fi61l1l.!e ,Marc l.AHNE, CQllmlM\l.lanll.::l uqale NfVOS£.

·pour 3C:tiun &: ~he illicite dalls Ie;; eaux des Tem:; Aus~rtllc:s c; An~arctiq1.lCl fi~ajscs .

-pour lIOn dtclar.ulOn de son {'nlree en zone 6conomiqtJe f>Ous jlltidictivn fra!~aiK,

CONSIDERANT (.,oe ~ infi-lictions son! Cllf3C~ristes par les faits SUiV8J:lt~ .

II COIU18!:tlio:l de 1.1 p~nce du ",wire "GRAND PRINCE /, en Action de pC:clte!l !'ir.ttr!<;w de 1:1 w nc tcooornique fran~alse par 47~ 49'Sud ei 07,045' Est( 95 mil1~s eu nord m:,!~i('SI de Ko:: rguelcn Ie 26 d~mbce 2000;\ &: H 58 ,

21 Consunation de i'abscmce lk UCclllnJliou d'cmri¢ en ZEE de ~r~uelo!n ,

3; Coust:ualion de !a prtscnca 1 [ '~u d'une p2langre, seclio.ln!!~c par Ie bord lors du $U!V,)j PM l'hClicopttrc. e. 3. 500 merr~ du navire de materiel de pOCho:: idellti'llte.a c.::ui du GRAl\D PRINCE.


41 Prtscnce dall5l'usine de 100 ClgOtltS d'lIppals prepares IICcrocbCs sur des hame~ons 6 une Ligne

SJ ConstlLl!ion de b. presence de 16 ~ines fr.aicbes II proximitt du post( dt; rtroor.ll!t de pa!Angrc, de 10 ICgints en cours de lavage dans Wl l»c. de 3 ~~.nts li'aichrs daM un IUln! bx

61 Constltation d'W!. Ulage treK recent de J'usine I'kmt de I'~ qui n a ~as ~e Detto)ie

71 Constatation de ia pr6ence de .54 cartons lit: poissc!l ;' (f(s tempt!falure5 eo~ tnlli! I degU el _ 12 deyes dans !eli lunncli dol conse~lion

8J Const&tlaTion do: !. pci5t"~ d'envi:on I k IOtlOei de IEtint a bord

\'u k p~ \~I d'lpprthc-nslOn dCs engins et mst6rie1 de p.:che N~ 6':00 du 26 dCcembrc '2000, da~i II ('issue dJ procts -\uba! d'infraction pd(ite j)M ~ c.l;lillil.e de fiigate Mare LANNE 6l'aJo:oc.ut: du a~ Ramon Francisco PF..RE7l'\OVO, du I1lwire « GRAND PRINCE.

DECIDE

Dtsignc: :sotidairc:laC.<"1l k upitine!WooD Francisco PE.REZ NOVO et !'.u1M!eut du GRANO PRI'NCE eard~,> de II! ~~jllYJlI'! oe que Ie JUSt' du fund (In orOOr.ne I! destin.uion.

INFORME It g~ del! saisie que Ijuicor.que :UJla dthnUl, delourne au ICI'.tC &.- dewitt au d¢loumcr It! er.gins, mlll~ricb, Cquipement>, inslrume/lts, r.avm, emba,,;aLoIlS 011 produiu fk !a p«he sajsis el conf'W:i i 5.'1 garde, :;era pu."li d'u~ pfirIl' d'emprOOrw~nt dt Iit-.n; molS II demo: ans CI J'W'ot ametlCle de 3 600 FnuK"s (5.;8,"2 Euros) a 2 500 000 F~s (331 122.54 Euros) ou \'unc de Cd drux peincs seulem::nt, CI q\le ~5 tnCtD:S pcines ~Iom applkables A quicooque aWl! rait obs\ls..-\e j, .. SiUsie t1I.t A awchens.lon de., engins, nuteritls, ~t,

~uipements. n:"irM ou eJIll;lmations ulilists pour cg pecbes en infraclion alA di!posil lom legislative, au rtglemenlaim minsi q~ les Pfoduiu de CC5 pecht 0\.1 ~s 5QlllIlltS provcnam de lew veme ("",ick 9 de I.. Jcj 83-582 du 5 jl.liik:1 1983).

Fait et do; II S.-\JNr· DENIS ... 11 JAN. 2001


Annex 11Procès-verbal de saisie nº 12/AM/2001 (fishing gear) (in French)

PRE"ECTURE DE LA. REUN ION

Din:ction lU"ioruol ct <kiatu:rnelltllk ~ Ami.<,s Mantunef;

uDIRECTI::!UR

Nf!!AMI200 I

C '" R IV)/. D 1fl

DOC, 11" COPY OF THE ACT 0' PROCES WRBAL DI SAISIE

0' THE FlSHING GEAR

PROCES VER8AI. OF SA_ISLE

Vu b.101 du I". nl:lMi ISSS modi.fi~~ rcbth1: Ii I'excfl;!cc de Iro I~he tl;i/U le~ C.1UX ~U$ 3OuVl:raittelt oujUl"id .... 'io,; fi-an,;,:ui:><", 'eL!:fldarrt au lItrJ! des temloun d'oulre mer;

Vu" Iu, n"66-4L1J 1.11.: !Ii: juin 1966 m.>diti&: sur l'elo:eTCi(;c de La pelel..: nlolri!l:ne el I'expkliultif)" d<'s pWdi.lili de b HI(.; dIi.IlS Jes Trrres Al.I$trlliM; e\ AtII .. etil:ue~ r~~J;

VII 1110>; 11"83· )12 1.1 .. S jll,lle1: t!';S) mod~ relative II ... rt.&ime at I,,~:e e'! CQI 'lpli'.t .. ut 13 lisle 00 l18etl:~ hIlbiJ.t.:s & (OllSUler b infractions ~ Ii: domalne dc$ pkhe:s nw'ilimts :

Vu It. dkn.'1 N-£4.1146 ,Iu 12 SI:?lembra 1984 fucam Ies modalitds d'lpp!i.;~hvn de La 10, pJici!!e ,

II ConnataUCII\ de b plis(o:v;:e du navirc.GRAND PRlNC[ ,. en actiol, <Ie pt..:b.:: ;i l'imtTlc:ht de I", zc....:: 6c:(lr.or."~ue fr"'Y"iK Po" 47" 49'Sud et 013- 45 ' F-.v( 91 .nilk's~:l nord oorj,'e~1 de ~ .. uc:kll Ie 26 d<!ee'r.~n: 2000.11 8 H 58.

2' COll!1ltlalion 1.1: '·ol:b.::lI;l: de declar~lion d'enU"~c en ZEE de Kl:rauclcn.

31 C'1I15II1t~lio" de ]A pt"'""Jtnot i I'al.l d'UN p.llqrc:, W(:lionntk par Ie bord loti du sun'Ol J."lIJ I ~Iiropt~c, 01 '500 n.-Ir<', du RlhVC de mal4!nel de ptche ideu~iquc' oclui Ju GR-'.NO PRINCE.


41 PrkellCt' d.w I'usinc de 200 cag~lIe5 d'BpP!1S VlCpates xcrochfs ~IT dts ~1lS" une ~IIC

SI Coll!outaliDn de II prC5C1lCt' de 16 it&incs 6.aic.'les" Pf"ximitt du po$IC' de rtmont~ de palana,re, de 10 IC~ cn cours de IavaCe Ibns un bIIr, de 3 ItgItltJ fraid:es dans un autre 00,

61 Constal3tion d'un usage uts :it~nt de fusine ~6::ent de l'l»inr. qui n'lI pa~ tIt I'II:lluybo

71 Corl5lA:1uinn de Ia prestn.c.! de S4 canon.; de poisson ~ dots t em~nnures CCTrlj)tiSl!s tntreI dtgJ,!; f't - 12 degru dans \es lunncis de cu~ebti.>n

8J C.ortSlAtI!rion de Is prts.!nce d'ell~iroc 18 IOnr.es de lotgiDe a boed

Vu Ie ptoUs vcrtal d'appr,!;hension des engins de pCcne, du produn de It: pb:Lc, d'J m.1lencl de Mviaation C'I de Ir~ssion. do OOcUUk'W d~ bord N" ("6.IN dn 26 d~mbrc 200u, ttabli ill'wue du proc~ -\'~rbal d'lnhclion pr~ilt par Ie eapit~ dc fr4ale Marc LAN'NE ll'eu:ontre du capilaine IUlnon Frat'IC\Se1J PEREZ NOVO, du D3~. ORAND PRINCE!>.

DF..aOE

Pur 1e ~"llt p!'OcCs-veth1I cb prodder!!a >aisill de I~ IOIMI.! ~ (ea"itOll oM) (ounes). tonsidtrl!s commt. dll materiel de yeehe. Ilu mardI'" J6() 000 fi-...nc' ( I 049 S31 curos).

DCeidc que Ie poi»on ~ vendu pM appellt·c.~ c:t que Ie prc.Juit de li \,;nl2 SC'I'I consi6nl .au Trkor Public j~u" ce qut Ie juge du fund cn ordonnc b dI."StiDltioil.

Designc: JOUdaircmclIt Ie c&pillinc RIunon Francisco PEREZ }l.OVO ttl snmlCur du GRA.'{n PRINCE gQn1JCns dt' II Aisie jusqu'. ~c qu'or.iIe soia donne de ~chr.rgcr.

£value Ics frais dt cclte proctdUf'\: ,i 50 000 francs ( 1 (:i22 EUl'os) qui 9eroltl A I;. charge du contttvenant

l:-.roro.iE Ie &ardiro de [.) saWc qlJe' quioonqut' lura dtrnlP , M.lOllrot au lerU de dtll'Wli' au dttoWT.t.'f Irs enilins. :nA:llIDtI.i, t'lluipem:nl5. inslrumenu., navires, e~icns all pcoduin de II p!ehc uisis ct con&! .. sa garde, SCrD. pUIlI d'rmc peine d'c:mprisonncment de deux m.li~ • deux ant et d' unc a.mende de J 600 frioJ'les (S4&.82 Ew'os). 2 sao 000 Francs ()31 122.5.Euro~) 01,1 l'u .. '1I: de C~ detlX pc;~ jtu~n{, el qUI.' ces n~m:i peOnes scrcw, applicabk~!I quic:onql.lC ~un. !ioit obst&o:le. hi aaisie au .. apPI-.ihension du cngins, I:'Iolb~ricl$, immurlnlh, &l.mentJ, navirt:\ 01,1 embartations I.Ililises pow c(:; ptchcs en in1i'aclion 3U)( disposiuon5 )'!;pilltiVf!t au i'Ct1cme.-:tllirCS ainsi que ~ proouits!k Cd pecht: au d9 iOrnr:JC'S pro\'en:1nl de leur Wnle (. articlo! 9 de ba Iol 83·5Sl du 5 juillc{ 19&3).

t::;-O KolOIS / -:I-r /tJ:J'/a.;l

R~~

l' J:~\'.-:..h ~~ (!,AlLLvt' tl#


Annex 12Procès-verbal de saisie nº 10/AM/2001 (fish on board) (in French)

REPUBLIQUE FRANC .... ISE PlU,f.'ECfURF. DE LA REUI'/10N

Oire.:l ion ReSioM! ef dq,an~rnt!ntale Des Aflaire; M.uilin)e$

Le DfR£CTEUR

N't;9/A..W:WOI I'ROC£S VERnAL DE SAISIF.

Vu 18 !oi du I er 11U!.."'S 11l8S ~difiie rekllive a !'ex<::!cice de III ~I".e dan:; Ie!; ~ux $Out

SOU\.::rniDete ou jl1.ridictivn frl\l~ s' ttenJanl au laree dc:s tc:: rrito ir-.:!. d'outre n~r ~

Vu Ia!oi n~66-400 (II! l S juin 1966 modifiee!our J'exerc::c de In p&.,~ marit~ el ]'cxploitntion des produils de b mer dans 1<-.$ T~rres AUSl.rak~ t:t AnlllctiqUC's Francaiscs;

V'" 1..IIoi n¢1I3-S82 dll S juillel 1983 mudifiee relative 3.U n.'gime de Ia will ef romplcil;1Slt ~ lisle des tI{;Ct\1& h:lbilircs ~ conmu ... r I~ infractions dans Ie dV/Ilaine tks pCcOO$ .maritime~ ;

VlJ Ie tlh:re1 N"84-846 du 12 SoC:j)I .... mbre 1984 fi.xaru les U"lodalites d'"pplic.:t:ion de I:lloi p(ecitet ~

Vu Ie j1rocC.:i verbal d'jll1'i:3Clion N° 4/00 du 26 dcc ... mbre 2000 tlresse a !'encontre de Morulleur Ramon Francisco PF'REZ NOVO lie Ie 5 octobre 19H a RWSIRA (Espugne), capiiaillc. du na',ire "G~;: pavilion du BRUZe au mom:nt des r"jlS. eet EI3.t llyant ltll.l;e ic .. ; 1/ de se~ regisl rt'S a la J'uite de cetto: infraction, a)"anl potU arnlll:r'U!" P AlK COMM.ERCIAL CORPORA nON a. BELIZE, p:tr k: capjto.ine de frCgale Miltc l.AJ'..'NI::. commandant !a fr~.!1te NIVOSE

-pour nlll) dt¢lAft:lion de son enlrec- ell "ZAne tCOfK)miquc wus juridiction f.~., if.t"

CONsroERA~'" 11(.;0; ! <:~ infmctions wnt e;u-ac1~rute3 par \t:5 failS sui"'RO\s'

II ConslataliOll dt-la presen<:o: dll na,irl'! OIGRAND PIUNCE), t"n eclion de pb:~ a I'inlcrieur dc 13 zone economiqw.: frar..;ni~ p;.1t ·17~ 49'Sud et On.° U' Est( 9~ mi1Jcs au flMd nordl.!!>1 dl'! Kc-.rgueJcn 1t: 26 dOCelllbre 2000.8 1-1 58.

2/ Ci>nsullllion de l'aMenee do: d60:Ia:1llioll d'cmr&- en 7FF (ie Kerguelen.

) 1 Constalalion do: la preserv:e Ii; I'r'tlu d ' u..""lC pa!angre, ~1i;)Mee p:u- Ie bord lots du sun'ol par l'belicoplere, e! a SOIJ ~tret du ".virl: de milltrit:l dt: iXche iJC::lltiquc' eelui dll GRAND r RlNCE.


~I Prbena: dans I'usinc de 200 cqdle$ d'applu pll~P.11<!S tcaot~ SIll' des harue~ollS Ii utle

""" 51 Constllalic.n de Ia p1istl'lCt de 161t~i.nes &aicr.es A proril\\ile du poSle de remontee de Pllangre, ell' 10 ~M f'I1 tOUf1 df' Ia\~ dans un hac, de 1 ~nes fra.k'~ dw un IUU'C. hie

6.' Con$uwion e'lUI usa,@,elrMr.xer,tdel'usi:nc:teen!de I'usine q:li D:' pas ttt nc:ttoyee

71 Constal3lioft r:Ie Is presrnce de So; eart01:i. de poliSOD" des !<:mpMttftS t.:IlTIpfUeS tntreI de~ ~ - 12 dcgr& dans Ies lWltltlt de co~i:uiGe

IJ ConstaWior. de b ~ d'tDviron I X IOnnes de ~ ~ bonl

\'U k proebl vtrboJ d'lIppl6hension dll produit de I:! ¢t;l:e N~ SJOO du;;6 d6cembre 1000, allbli .I'~ du pr~ -verbal d'infractiuu pl6eu<! pat Ie eapiwlIl: de frt:ilu1.: Man. lA~"NE ll'encontre duetpitaine Ramon F~ PEREZ NOVO, d.J. navire I( GRA."-'D PRINCE.>.

DECIDE

Par Ie ~(procb-\"Ubll de proddcT lis A:sit de b I Evaluo: CIIci en valc:tu mrnnlc: du ~.i. 810 000 1I1qJiDr.!IIe sitUIDI i 45 hnc:s du l-ilo ( 6,S6 t;\lJO$). 00b:S.! que Ie pe;iwn sera ¥eZdu pr .ppcl d'ofln: eI que: k prvduit de Ia \'Ctlle $el"I consiGfll! ttl Tr60r Publicj~u" c;;( que Ie jur.e dI.L forK! tnordOl..1I! 1:1 de.stination

~s~ solidlittment Ie c:.pit.unc Ram:ln Francilleo PEP1L NOVO 1:1 r:lrmaleur du GRAND PRlNCE prdi¢ru. de IA ~isic jusqu" ee qu'ororc 50a oolmf de dtcl:argcr.

E~lue le:s frais de ceuc procedu:e.l90 000 ti-aocs ( 13 no EUiOI) qui scronl • b clwge au torlIreve~.

INfORM£ Ie g:Ud;"'l« II saisie C;uo: qulCCr.que 2UnI d~lnul, 4o:10~ ou Icnt~ de dell'Jue olU dt!OUrntt Its m&1ns. ~b, &!uiiJll~ F.suumeo!s, nev'.res. etnb.u=lions Oil prodUu de 11 pk.."e sai;.i; eo: ().)IIw. SlI:IItJt., sera puni d'~ p.:ine d'mtIlO3ONtrolI:"nt de de\!.'\: rr.t>i.)

i deux. ans tl d'~ 1IIt"Iffli~ de 3600 Fra:'lC1 (54&.!2 Euros)' 2 SOIl 000 Francs \ 381 122,54 Euros) ou 1'II1"II: dr: t:e1!k1ll!. peiDes scWement, e! que eCl mlmes peint.t scron: AjJp!lC3btes ~ q~icotq"..Ie al:f1l fuit ubJtlll!~ i Ia ~ ou Ii appr~hensioll des ~Il@ins, ma!MeIs. in>:Inurtrols, i!quiprmerll$, 1\a\'lI"tS ou tmb1rt .. ioos utilists poW" cct pkhes en infractIOn 10.'( CliPOiil:iollS Jegisktms ou riglcmell!lIim ainsi que Ie produits de ~ pkhe ou de:> $Om~ j)(Ovtll."U1! de leur VCf~.e (articlt 9 de: la I.li 8)·S82 du.5 juiUct 1983).

Fad eI clo' Ii SA1~T· D~,"IS Lo

I I JAN. 2001


Annex 13Ordonnance nº 3/2001 of 12 January 2001 of the Tribunal d’instance at Saint-Paul (in French)– English translation (not reproduced)


I'arliel. Z de 11 1016&400 dl1l3 j\l.llll966 modH1e. par 11 101 dll 18 ommbrt 1997; 11.11'0 I eta COOltate illord 11 presence d'Inmn 18 toMU de Watne; qlle Ie (ail que Ie 111m an 'IIi.urptb dans II lOll /icollOmique mlllS:l" WlJ avoir sllJ1I.lii SI preNlLee nl declare la qlWltite de palaaOIL detllnll, fait preaUDIer que la tatalita du prisea I ete UleglIemelli picbe. dans II IOlle eeollomiqlle eulusl." ;

Atwdll qll'llI fU de cu "'mlnll, 11 mJn.lne. de Il aaIsIe 01 palUTll8 ta1re ql1e SOUl II candftloll dll paiellllilt priaWlle d'une CautiOI til" en appHcatioll du dbpol1UolII de l'arUtle. de la 101 dll II jm 1966 lIlo4l.llee (par 1a 101 dll II Immbre 1991), It de I'artlcle 142 dll Codl d. procedl1/'l pellait.

.UtendI qll. I'actsunt dll mOIlWI de ceae calldoD. U rimlte dll dlJpasttlODJ des artIciu 73 § Z" Z92 de 1a connnUon dtalfatlou UnlUIlIf II droit de 1a Iller qll' U dol! in · ralsolllllble·, ce trItm aig:nl1l&nt plus preciJ'mllll qlll l'~uiUhre Collal i litalltlr elltre II mOlltant, 1a forml It 1a I1Ilure d. Clue elution dolt in raiJounable ;

'"endll que l'haiUltlOIL de ce euutirl ra.i5olllllllle resson dl 11 frulte du lnfractiollS reprocbe.. au proprtetafre do I1Irin lmmabllla8, des SlDCtiOIll pouUJll inlmposM' par les lois de l'Etat lmmolllllsatllur, la ,allur du am (mmobtuse;

!uelldll qn par surmit. ce eautiollDemmt dolt (arudr i 1& foil :

I • 1a repriaentaUoll de la pe:nollllt • I'eacoon dl q11l. Ie prteiHertlai d'1nfract1oo I ete dnao.

2 • I' Ie palemellt du amilldes eacouruea ;

'nelldu que II nlM dl piebe en eallH I ete evalue par monsllur CIWfCEREL. elpert m.arltiml, • 13.000.000.00 FF ; que les IlIIendes lacOurues IW I. eaplta.lne dll 1I1'f1n dol"ut in "aluell, sur 1& bue de 18 UlIllItI dl pallial Wi(alllllint pieb6s It des dbpollUoDJ de lalol du II jm 1966 moditli, i un montaal mu1mal de 9.000.000,00 FF (Jur Il bue d'ue amlnde d, 1.000.000,00 Fr allgmen'" de 500.000.00 f1 par [0l1li, picb" 111 deli de delll tonnes) ; qu'enfln lei YIetlmes II ,oJml adrlbllU (iiDinlellWll dll fDdelllnftel de motns de 400.000.00 rr ;

.Utelldu qlle par luill u'kbet de thtr co ..... suit Ie cautlellUmenl delllDdI :

· paur (UlD.dr Ia repriaulltlOIL dll eapitaiDe de 11I'fire apprebend6 : 1.000.000,00 Fr,

• pour (UlD.dr Ie paiement dll domma". CIUJiit par IlIlnfracUolIS relnell : 4OO.0D0,fI0 n ,

• pour carlDdr Ie paiement dll IIDende. encourullet la canflleatloll du Dim : 10.000.000,00

" d. satte qu'alllGtai 11 calldall JtrI tIJ6e ila sallllllfl de lI.ffIO.OOO.oo n . I ~~~ 1(8 £u.. ... c~

IJWIdIl qlll d Iu IIIDdallW de paident de cet18 eaudonlOnl ,(IIe .... t ue coapountl du wactire raiIonnallle de ceII&d II.I'1IIptM 1& con'endeD IDlem&IIoualt I ... YIaM, n apparall ralIollUble, compll tIIID d. I'iqulllbre (IolIaIlllHellnl. d'lmposer lUI palellllilt. loJl en npieu, sal1 par ~e wtUlei, JOb: pat eb6q1lt dl banque ;


PAR CES MOTIFS

HOUI, fra.n.Il ROBAIL, JU,8 au lr:IbunaJ d'lnstance de !aint-Paui, statuant sur requite,

CONFIR.MONS 1& sa1sfe du narite en date du 08 J&IIvler 2001 ;

D1S0NS que II. main-levee de Cltle sai.llelfl fera SOIll paiement, enue les mains de Ia ewe des Depots 8t ConsllJl.ltloDI, d'une caution d'un montant total de 11.400.000,00 PF (onu milliOIll qualn cent mille tranes) salt 1.737.918.70 EtfI (un mlillon sept Clint tr'CIDte sept mille neut cant d1% bllit eUlOS 8t solU.llte dil cenlS) solt flU es-peces. lolt en cheque certlDe solt en cheque baneaire.

EN FOI DB ~UOllA PB.ESENTE ORDONNAlICB A ETE SIG ~ LB ,..,mENT ET LB'~

\ , LB 'RES"'NT ' 1


Annex 14Letter from Mr Penelas Alvarez to the Direction des affaires maritimes de la Réunion dated 7 February 2001, with fax transmission report (in Spanish) (not reproduced)– English translation


Annex 14 -1Certification from Pesqueira da Paraiba Ltda concerning fishing licence to be received from Brazil (in Spanish) (not reproduced)– English translation


Annex 15Request for the release of the vessel addressed by the owner of the Grand Prince to the Tribunal d’instance of Saint-Paul dated 19 February 2001 (in French)


ORDONNANCE

N~.

Vu la requite: ~i precUe e. par Its nl<Jlifs y t..'Cposes .

Disons que malgr! Je jUiemctU l't"OOU pa.!' Ie TdbUDaJ COlTectiormc:1 de Saine·DeIli, k 23/0112001. en applic;j.CoD des dispositio%ls de I'article 7l § 2 de 11. eODvC'D!ioD. des Nations Unles SUI Ie Droit de. III Ma, la main-levee d~ II 1;.<)J)fi_tlon du Navue: GnDd·Pri.oce ~ fua <in: pdsen~tion d'NG' !!~n!ltie bwa1u:, etl. gar.nne du pll.lemem <fe Ia 6Om/ne de 11 .400.000,OOF on toUt autre moJUIN t6suhant soit d 'unjuce.m.eDt dl6nitif 50it d 'un sC(.ord. 1 CODCUITente tit U . .wo.OOO.OOF

Fait en nmre Cabint:t.1 SAINT·PAUL Ie ", .. .. .... . ....... .

Lc Greffier


Annex 16Ordonnance nº 6/2001 of 22 February 2001 of the Tribunal d’instance at Saint Paul (in French)

TaDtnU.L D ' I1oII"Jt,Mca DE 11' PAIno '1' U Q\jaJ. Br.ost

, nC2 .u.:I1f1' 'AtIl. C&OILZ • : t~ . J).~O

R.C . H~Ol-O' St6 PAIX ~£ACIAL CORP Nev1 ... de. pl;t.;h. ~G .... nd r~1nc;.

OOC. 1!!lt

OP" SAUl' ORDIUiIIAHC"! ti t 8/2001 OP" !"HE "nII81J1(o\L D'IIfSToVICE

PAUL RItJECTIIIG !"HI uoY..sT P"OR RZLV.SII !"HI SIIIP

ORDONNANCE NS 6/2001

11'01.1. rr .. nk ROMl!., ' ''lie "hsr ... d .. <rib"nlI.l ~'ln .~enc. 0.1 .. S.int - P .... 1 ,

Att. . ndu qua 1 . tribun.l c¢rrectionn.l .. ordonn' contl s".tion du n."iu .. n litiQe ,,\lc':: .x'cueion provi.oire .. que par su.it . , 1. ~uQ' d . c. lUll' n'.s!; pll •• cO!:lp6t.nt po ... " ordonnu 1.1 re!U •• dud~t navLU lI. .on prcpri ' t.j. ... OU capihin. &1.1 VU d'un. sifl'pl. 9&ran"j, banea1". J

p •• c. s 111 0 T :r F S


Annex 17Valuation of the Grand Prince from Mr Carceller Vilalta of TAXO Valoración, S.L. (in Spanish) (not reproduced), with annexes:– general arrangement drawing


Annex 17 (continued)– Provisional Patent of Navigation (reproduced as Annex 3 of the Application)

Annex 17 (continued)– R.I.N.A.: Certificate of Class


OIIDIIWIY '3

MACHINERY ORDIMAI'IY .3

"'-."-~-..... -..... -----.... --.. - ... ----.. ----,--_ ..... -.-,-- ... .. _-_ .. __ . __ ..... _ .. -.. __ ...... _---_ .. _ .... _-------_ .. _-.. _-----......... --._ .. _-_ .. _ ... _- ... __ ... __ .. ... _-=.o':::::":'"'..=:.:t;':.'",.:' .f'"~-=::'''::.====-_''::.'''':''''::-==-'''"''=.~ -_ ..... - _ ... _ ..... __ .. -.... _---_ .. _ ..... _ .. _ .. __ ..... _ ..... __ .... _- ... - ._ .... _ .. _-_. __ ... _ ... _ ..... _-.. ---..... _--_ .. _--

-~"' ..


PIIOI and datt of.IIMY VIGO 0 2 - 11 - 99

~ Etec tuadal vilita~ : Anuales d. Calco Y M4qui nal. Bl buque cont i nua on su elase .

• lJafTlOffAIJA"h\l~ • Po. Poi .... Rod .. , ."

"" VIGO - 02-11·99 .J ..,.J '" I N.J P'- and dlte 01 ' UMY SlQnawAi and ...,

"" d. I I

Place MCiIHleo oI l _y SignllUre and Mal

"" •• I I I P'- and dIItt oI_y S/gnnu. and Mil

~

"'" - I

~ and dale oIlUfVlY Slgnanrre ItId '"'

, . ~

Pon ••


P'- and daN 01_1

.... PIJot and Clam of .u....y

Pon

PIleI Mel dIIlIlIf IUrvey

.... ~ and elite 01 ~r

.... PD &lid date of 1U1'Yt)'

.... --

.. -EHOQRSEMEHTS

, ..

,.,

-

-

,.

SlgM,tur. and .. II

I I I I Slgnall.n and ....

• I

Sign...". and ...

I

SigI\IWI1I and Mal

• I

SlgIWIUII &lid Mill

I I Il


Annex 17 (continued)– R.I.N.A.: Statement of Class (Spanish and English)

REGISTRO ITALIANO NAVALE

=:!:~,.t.'=1'IIKo\ b_ --.-.. ...

DECLARAC10N DE.ClASE ST'ATEMENtOFCLASS

~ N. 6 .QgJTAin ....... "" ..... ~AU' ~ II , 1I, .... I1"~" • •••

III 76707 GRAND PRIMel

-~ --=-BILUS

HOTOKAVI

KOYC"" S.L. -~_ .. -- ACIIlO

---"' I..uoI __ _ PORT WlLLIR DRYDOCKS LTD. ( CAKADA I -.-.. -t.. ... _ --"'-~..:::::,:.::.,.---. --

V 1 U J 7 l'ecI!e __ ---BILtzl 079120n

534 . 75 ----100 - A - 1.1 - "'AV.IL : P •• .

1 . 966

218 . 18

Ylro.a'" IIc.r.do rnUift'lOci-. l , SUi m ~1.Ine.deQUln. (·' _ ...... _._"' _ _ ._ .... _"' .... ..,, ('1

--~ .... ---.... ____ ._1 ___ .. _ I"l_. ___ ... _', _____ .. _~

M, ___ , _ .. _

----

--

I


" 76101 _Wtalqw --PISC"

ORM» PUliCE

ILIHI~AD"

JU1UO

=,N. 226/9 8 ~ 2 :"

1. 999

• ~ 07 IKERO 1.999

La .,.,lsIon III MIa Otdllaclon .. IUjetI. • III milmal re;w ~ mndcionel apicJble; paIlIla en'IIIton eMl c.rtftcado 1M eI_. 1NI_1I .................. ~_ ... ~ ____ W.._d ... ~ald,o ...

--....-, ..


GJWIIO PURel ~,.. 226 / 98 ~ s : 4

NOTAS I REMARKS

.. ···_··_ ... _ .. _M· __ ·•• .. M." ... · ..... · ..... _ .•.. · __ .···_··_··· .. _ .......... _ ............. _ .......................... _ ................... .

.. • .. _ .. _ .. •• .... ···_···_····_· ... •••• __ ·_ ............ • ...... M ... _ .............. _._ ....... _ ...................... .. __ ............................. .... .

... __ ....................................... _ ....... -.... .................. _ ............. _ ... __ ... -........................... _ ... _-_ .... __ ....... _-

... -.... -........... _ .......... _-_ ....... -........ _ ... _ ... _ ... __ ..... _._-_ ... -._-_ .... __ ...... __ ._ ..... __ . __ ..... -_ ..... __ ...

..... -._ ..... __ ...... _ ... _--_ ..... _-_ ... _ ..... _ .... _--.. -._-_ ... -. __ ..... _-_ ........ __ ... -.. __ ._ ..... _ .......... ---_ ..... _._ ........ __ .. _ ... __ ... _-.. -._ ............................. _ ... ... _ .. __ ...... _ ................ . .............. ............... ................... _ ............ _ ......... _ .... .... ........................... -......... _ .......... _ ........ __ ..... ..... _ ......... . ..... _ .......... __ ....... __ ...... __ ........ _-_ .......... _-... __ ........... _ ..... _--..... __ ..... _ ...... _ .. __ ._-_ ...... _-_._ ..... _-----_ ...... _ ... _-._-_ ... _-_ ... _-_ ... _ ..... _-_ ..... _.--......... __ ..... _ .. _ ..... _-_ .............. . .... _--_ ... __ ..... __ . __ ._ ..... _ ..... __ .- ...... _ .................. .. _-_ ....... _ .............. - ...... _ .......... __ ..... _ ........ . . -.. -.................................... -........ -................... . • __ ..... ..... _.... ...... .. ........... _. __ " .... >0 ........ _ ............ _._

.......... _ .......... __ .... ... _ ... -....... _._ ..... _ ......... -............. __ ......... _ ... -._-_ ...... _-_ ...... ---........ _ ... _._ ..... _ .. .

... __ ........ __ .... _-_ ..... __ ... _. __ ..... __ .... _-_ ... __ .... _._--"'-'--"'-" ...... _._-...... _ ..... _ .. . "._ .... -. __ ........ __ .. ... _. __ ... ..... _-_ ... .. _ .......... _ ....... _ ........ __ ......... _ .......... _ .............. _ .......... -........ _ ... .. ........................ _ ............... .. . ............... -........ _ ............ ....... . . ............ -._ ................................. _ ................ ...... .

...... - ................... __ ........ _ ... __ ... __ ... _ ..•.. _ ..... -_ ....... _. __ ........ __ ... .... _._ .... _-_ ..... _-........ _---........ _ .... ---..... __ .. __ .. __ ·"·_H .. __ . __ ...... _ ...... _._ ... _ .. _H . •• __ ..... _ ...... H' __ ••

.... __ ... -... -. __ ........ _ ..... _._ ........ _ ... _ .. .... _._ ... _ ....... _ ... _-_ ... _--..... --_ ..... _ ..... _ .... _._ .. _ ................. ..

............... __ .................................................................. . ....... -..................... _ ............ _ ... ... ...... ......................... . _ ....... - ....... _ .. __ ..... _ ........ .. - ..... _ ... __ ..... _._-..... _.-...... ... _._ ...... _ ............ _ ............ -........ _ ...... _-_ .. _ .. . ..... __ ... _ ... _-_ .. _ .. __ .-.. __ ....... __ ... __ ... _ ..... _._ .. _ ..... _-_ ....... _ ... __ . __ .... __ .. _---....... _.-..... - ..... __ ........ __ ............ _ ...... -..... .

••• .. -· .. ••• __ • .......... M .. ..... ___ ..... _ ..... _ ••• __ ...... _ .......... M ••••••

............................. ........ _ ....................... . ................... _ ........................... . ....... _ ...................... . ---


=-.:::.. ... 22,,98 '='" • :- 4

"IsM)OS I fNoOflSEMENTS

.......•..•....• ~ ................. ~ ...... ~~--.-.. ~.--.- .. ~ .. --~.~.~~~~ ... -.~--.- ............ -.... ~ ........ . .••• h ••. ~ •••• H.H .•••. H' ~_ ...... hH'" ....... " h ••• •·••••••·••• .. •·••·•·•·• ......... H"'"'' .•• ~ .•.•• , ..................... ~ ..................... -..... .

•• ~ ................. ~ •••••••. H_._~H_~_.~_.,, ___ ._"._" ___ ._.H __ ... ··_H_ .......... ········ .. ···

•• ...................................... H __ ....

...... ~ .... __ ... H ............ ~_·· __ ·• .. •·•· .. H.H .............. ,,,,,H •.•

...... H_ .. ___ .. ____ ... _H_._._. __ ...... __ .. - _ .. - .. _ ..... -

~.H_ .. ___ ... _H __ .. H •

.............. H •.• H' ....................... _ .~ ... H ..... ·_ H __ .··H ........ ·• H ...... ,,,H ...•• __ ....... H_ ... _ .. _H .... ·

._ ... _ ....... .. • _ ... ~_. ___ • _____ .• H. ___ .H_ ._HH."."

... _HH .. • __ " __ •• ___ H. __ •••••• __ ._H __ ...... ··H .... · .. · ..... H ••• ..... _,,_.~ ... _ ..... H .... • _.~ .. __ ._H_H_.~ •

...... - ....... ~ ... ------_.- .......... -.. . -~ ... --.--.... -. ._ ..... __ ..... _ .. -........ _ ....... _ ... H ....... _ .... ~ ...... .-_ H • ... _ .. _ .. __ .......... . ... H ___ H._ .. _· __ _

......... _.' ___ .. _.H _____ ... ___ .. _H ___ ._H ...

. ........ _ ................ ' .. _._ .. H._H._._H._.H • ... HH.H

_'_' __ H"'_"'H_.~_H"'.'. .. H ••• . _ ....... H.· ................ · .. ..... _. __ .- .. HH.H .. H._ ... __ .. • .. _· __ ·_· ....... ·

__ H __ ·_._MM .. ·H ... H ... _. .. _H ..... H."._. ___ H. ___ _ _____ . __ ._H_ H ____ M·

....... H._ .... H_.H .......... H_ ... _ ............ ........ .. ......

..... _ .. _. • .......... H ... ..

... _ .. _ _ .. _ .. _ ... ~_ ............ H ... _ ....... _ ............. H....... .-• ...... _._H

_ .................... . .H·_·_· _____ M ___ ~· ____ _

........ __ .. H~·_H __ · __ · __ .. ··· ........ _ _ ._ .. _-_ ... _._ .. -.... . .............. _ ....... _.... .-._ ..... _ ... -._..... . ....... ..... -- .......... _ .. _. __ . . ............. _ ................... . - .........

....... ____ .. __ H ___ ._H~. ____ .. ·_ .. · __

.... _.::~~:~.::~~~~: .. ---.-.. -.-... --.. ~-....... - ... - ... H .......... .. ..

........ _ ........ .. . -"--.. " .. ".--".---. §f~~§~-~- -..... -....... _ ...... .


Annex 17 (continued)English translation of valuation

TAXO

Valuation

TAXOVAlORACIQN S .L.

C. Universidad 4, , · 46003 Valencia

Phone (96) 353 1893 Fax (96) 3 51 8353

Report no.. : f>O.GOIMI0 1

Type: Shippina.

V.luer: F.C.V.

VALUATION OF THE MIV "GRAND PRINCE"

This vakJation is issued at the request of Mr. Alberto Penelas, Lawyer, with address at

Vigil, 11 , Pintor L.axelro Street. 2 ..... A.

1,· IDENTIFICATION

The motor fishing vessel -Grand Prince- was a fishing stem trawler equipped with a

ramp, that was converted to a long liner in 1998. Her flag is of Belize, she is registered

in the Port of Belize, under registry number 07972047. Her owner is Paik Commerda!

Corp .• with address 8t 35 A Regent Street, Belize City- Belize. Her IMO number Is

6701656.

2. MAIN PARTICULARS AND DESCRIPTION.

2.1. Maio partjculatJ.

-Length overaU

• Length between perpendiculars

• Breadth

- Draught

- Gross Tonnage

2.2. Hull.

44,10 mts.

37,00 mts .

10 ,OO mls.

4 ,80 mts.

534,75 GT.

She is a vessel with hull made of steel, buitt 8t Port Weeller Orydoc:ks in Cal'\8da in the

year 1966, prepared for stem ttawter fishing; she has one deck; with forecastle from

the midship section forward for crew accommodation; with a pi lo t bridge over the said

forecastle deck. In 1998 MN "Grand Prince" was converted, the whote trawl fishing I.Xlit


was removed and that the bottom-line fishing unit was installed. The forecastle deck

was lengthened to the stem and a second fish ing hold was built abaft the old one.

2.3. Engine.

Her main engine is of General Motors make, with 12 cylinders, tv.'o stroke of 956 kw.

She also has three auxiliary sets of 75 kw.

Refrigerating plant tv.'o refrigeration compressors with their corresponding condensers,

pumps, receptacles. Three freezing runnels with a freezing capacity of 8 tons/day, coils

in both holds and cold-insulation.

2.4. Special fittings.

Fishing unit for bottom line fishing made up of line winch, conveyor belt and boxes.

2.5. Communication, Navigation and Fishing Electronic Equipment.

1 VHF Sailor PT 144 B

1 VHF Ken'NOOd.

1 telephony ICON IC M710

1 radio telephone Furuno FSSOOO.

1 Fax Toshiba.

1 TR emergency $ART

1 Radar ARPA Furuno.

1 Radar Simrad Auritsu.

1 Nautex JRC.

1 Gonio Koden KS 5131

1 Automatic pilot Robertson, AP9MK3.

1 direction heading RGC.

1 GPS Navigator Furuoo.

1 Loran GPS 6700 Apelco.

1 Inmarsa! Furuna Falcon 81 .

1 Video plotter LG.

1 sonar sounding Furuno.

1 sonar sounding Kaden.


3.- STATE OF MAINTENANCE.

At first impression, the vessel is in good condition as to crew accommodation

and fittings for fishing and the conservation thereof.

It should be emphasised that engines and most of the hull and are thirty four

years old. Nevertheless, the MN "Grand Prince- keeps her class at RINA.

4. CERTIFICATES AND LICENCES.

The FN -Grand Prince- has certificates from Belize which entitles her to

navigate and has those from the Classification Society Registro Italiano Navala,

under class 1()()..A-1 , 1-Nav IL

5. CRITICAL JUDGEMENT ON THE VESSEL FOR HER ACTIVITY.

Fundamentally the vessel is old. She is a vessel which has been adapted for

her present method of fishing, therefore she lacks the optimal characteristics,

such as size, general arrangement and power for her present fishing activity.

The foregoing does not mean that the vessel is of no use, but that she does not

meet the best conditions for bottom-line fishing.

6.- INFORMATION ABOUT MARKET.

The purchase of 'l9ssels similar to MN -Grand Prince", of the same age is not

common, other than for their breaking-up, therefore the valuer does not have

data available which might be used to compare with this, gi'l9n that, after all, the

MN "Grand Prince" is stilt serviceable for fishing, due to her modemisation in

1998.

7.· REPLACEMENT COST.

This is assessed as 2,585,000.00 E (EUROS TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED

AND EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND).

8.- NET REPLACEMENT COST.


Bearing in mind the age of MN "Grand Prince". the replacement cost,

depreciated by her age, and modemised in 1988 Is 360,000,00 e (EUROS

THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THOUSAND).

9 VALUATION.

Bearing in mind the net replacement value, the modemisation undertaken in

1998 and the state and usefulness of the vessel , the appraisal cost of MN

"Grand Prince" is, to the best of the valuer's knowtedge and ability, 360,000.00

E (EUROS THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THOUSAND).

And for the record, I sign this valuation at Vigo, on the 16'" of March, 2001.

Signed: Faustino Carceller Vilalta.

PhD. Naval Architect.


ATTACHMENTS.

General Arrangement Drawing.

Provisory Patent of Navigation.

R.I .N.A.: Certificate of Class.

R.I.N.A.: Declaration of Class.


Annex 18Technical report and certificate of valuation of the Grand Prince from Mr Antonio Alonso Perez, Marine Surveyor (in Spanish) (not reproduced), with annexes:– Bill of Sale (in Spanish) (not reproduced), with supporting documents (in Spanish and in English) (reproduced as Annex 2 of the Application)– Provisional Patent of Navigation (reproduced as Annex 3 of the Application)– drawings of the Grand Prince


Hili!

rrl I I ! • I

.m: ..... i

•

I , I I

I • I

I • I

, , !L ( , . I ! i ! , ! I


Annex 18 (continued)– ten colour prints of photographs of the Grand Prince and of parts of the equipment






Annex 18 (continued)English translation of the report and certificate

Captain Antonio Alonso P4rez

Marine Surveyor

Vigo.

TECHNICAL REPORT

MN "GRAND PRINCE"

CERTIFICATE OF VALUATION

13Tll• OF MARCH 2001


Captain Antonio Alonso Perez

Marine Surveyor

Vigo.

PARTICULARS OF THE VESSEL

Name:

IMO Number

Signal call

Registry number

Shipowner

Flag

Port of Registry

Gross Tonnage

Net Tonnage

Year of building

Shipyard

Hull

Length overall

Length between perpendiculars

Moulded breadth

Draught

Type of vessel:

Number of holds

Make of engine

Principals:

Built by

Auxiliary set:

MN "GRAND PRINCE"

6701656

V3UJ7

07972047

PAIK COMERCIAL CORP.

Belize

Belize

669

267

1967

Port Seller Dry Docks Ltd.

St. Catherines, Ontario

steel

44,10 mts.

37,34 mts.

10,01 mts.

4,81 mts.

Engine. Frozen Fish Carrier.

2

General Motors

Diesel 2SA 12 cyI. 230x 254 single

reduction 1300 bhp (956kw)

General Motors Corp. La Grange

2 x 75 kw 230 v. 60 Hz a.Co


Captain Antonio Alonso Perez

Marine Surveyor

Vigo.

TECHNICAL REPORT

The undersigned, Mr. Antonio Alonso Perez, Captain of the Merchant Navy,

Average Agent, in the name and on behalf of SIRCAI VIGO, S.l. was requested

by Mr. Alberto Penelas, on behalf of PAIK COMERCIAl CORP., to make a

valuation of the vessel "GRAND PRINCE", which is kept detained by the

Authorities of Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean.

From the attached documents and the informations received, all the following is

inferred:

BUILDING

The vessel "Grand Prince", with hull made of steel, was built in the shipyard

Port Seller Ory Docks ltd. From SI. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, in the year

1967, her particulars being those stated above.

The pilot bridge is placed fOfWard and accommodations on the main deck

forward of the vessel over the engine room.

The two holds are in the 1000er deck forward of the freezing tunnels and the fish

processing area is in the main deck, the fishing operation area and the bottom

line winch being on the upper deck.

This vessel was built as a cod-fishing slem trawler, she being subsequently

converted to a deep-sea long liner; her trawling windlass, astem fishing unit,

and ramp being dismantled, and a weather deck being installed.


Double bottom tanks are used for fuel and oils, and the fore peak for ballast,

freshwater tanks being places both forward and astern.

The vessel is propelled by a General Motors main engine, with a single

adjustable pitch propeller.

CAPACITY

Hold capacity

Diesel~il capacity

Fresh water capacity

ENGINE

180 tons.

285 tons.

30 tons.

Main engine: General Motors, 1300 b.h.p. (956 kw)

Auxiliary set 3 General Motors, of 75 kw, 230 v. 60 Hz a.c.

FREEZING SYSTEM

The main freezing plant is situated on the upper platform of the engine room,

and uses FREON-22 as refrigerating gas.

The freezing capacity of the plant is 8 ton/day in three freezing tunnels placed

on the lower deck abaft the holds, equipped with two compressors.

ELECTRONIC NAVIGATION SYSTEMS.

The navigation and communication equipment wilh which Ihe vessel is

equipped are as follows:

1 VHF SAILOR RT144B

1 VHF Kenwood

1 Radar ARPA Furuno

1 Radar Simrad Anritsu.

1 Navtex J.R.C. N.C.R. 300 A

1 video plotter lG Siudiaworks.

1 colour sounding FUNno.

1 colour sounding Kaden CUS 8831 .

1 Gonia Koden KS 5131

1 direction heading Robertson RGC and automatic pilot Robertson AP9MK3


1 GPS Navigator Furuno.

1 Loran GPS 6700 Apelco

1 inmarsat Furuno Felcon 81

1 telephony ICON IC M 710

1 radio telephone SSB Furuno FSSooo

1 Fax Public Toshiba

1 TR emergency SART.

CRITERIA OF VALUATION.

In order to issue our opinion on the value of the vessel "Grand Prince", we shall

bear in mind as follows:

1.- Technical specifications. design and condition of the vessel.

The vessel was buill as a stem tr8lNler with refrigerating well for the fishing of

hake and cod, in 1967, her ship::lWfler being Haskel Shipping & Properties Ltd.

In 1998, the vessel was remodelled, she being converted to a bottom-liner with

the fitting of a bottom-line winch: her trawling windlass and astern ramp being

dismantelled and a weather deck being built astern.

On the 27th of March 2000, the vessel was acquired by the firm PAIK

COMERCIAL Corp., for an overall sum of 45,000,000 pesetas.

In my opinion, the vessel does not have the arrangement which is normally

used in a modem automatic bottom-line vessel, and the pawerful engine

designed for trawling vessels has a high bunker consumption.

The pilot bridge is well organised with appropriate space and is provided with

modem navigation electronic equipment.

2. Conditions of the International Market.


Fishing grounds for the catching of demersal fish with long-lines are few and far

belv¥een, limited to reduced fishing areas, such as international waters and EU

with a limited number of fishing licences.

At this moment, there is a lack of interest in buying these vessels, and the little

existent interest is focused on modem existing vessels and brand-new vessels.

Some modern vessels have been for sale since 1999 and they have not been

sold yet.

The quality of 'Grand Prince' is not appropriate to meeting the operational

requirements of a long-liner in cold waters of the North Atlantic or Pacific,

because she does not fulfill the requirements of resistance to ice and safety.

A possible buyer looking for a long-liner to fish tunny, S\oVOrdfish, etc ... in

temperate waters will focus on vessels originally built to that end, such as those

of Japan etc ... , which can be obtained more cheaply, and .....-hich have an

appropriate distribution, as wen as higher safety and conditions of navigation.

It must also be borne in mind that Grand Prince lacks any kind of fishing licence

.....-hatsoever for the countries subject to quotas in areas such as NAFO,

CAMELAR, JCAT, etc.

Should it be our intention to buy the vessel as a trawler, we would face the

following problems:

A) The vessel has neither trawling windlass nor after ramp nor fishing gears.

New sonars, receiving tanks, processing equipment, etc .. would have to be

installed and the weather deck would have to be removed, .....-hich I deem an

excessive cost for an old vessel with few amenities.

8 ) The market is glutted with trawlers for sale in good technical condition and

ready to depart to the fishing grounds. There are some with reinforced hulls

for ice, banks being more interested in financing this kind of vessels.


VALUATION OF THE VESSEL.

Grand Prince was sold in March 2000, to the firm PAIK COMERCIAL CORP. for

an amount of 45,000,000 ptas, which bearing in mind the exchange rate of the

French Franc at 25,36 pesetas, would be 1,774,448 French Francs which we

understand is the scrap value of the vessel due to her age; nevertheless, and

taking into account the good maintenance observed, as well as the investment

in navigation gear and accommodation of the vessel, we understand that she

has been revalued by 30%; therefore the vessel's value at present is:

58,500,000 pesetas.

Bearing in mind all the aforementioned, and the age of the vessel , and

considering that both the hull and the engine are in good condition, without

defeds or damage, and bearing in mind that the price of a brand new vessel

with the same particulars, is naN approx. 425,000,000 and that the

transformation cost could have approximately 30,000,000 pesetas.

Deduction factor: 0,08

Scrap value factor: 1-0,08= 0,92

Scrap value at 33 years = 0,92 31= 0,075409

Vessel replacement cost 0,075409 x 425,000,000 = 32,048,825 ptas.

Conditioning approx. cost 30,000,000 plas.

Vessel's cost: 62,048,825 ptas.

Scrap value in 3 years = 0,92 3= 0,778688

Vessel replacement cost= 0,778688 x 62,048,825 ptas = 48,316,675 ptas.

Revaluation 30%=14,495,002 ptas.

Vessel's present value= 62,811 ,677 ptas.

Vigo, on the 1Slti of March 2001 .

The Average Agent. (firma ilegible)


Captain Antonio Alonso P~rez

Marine Surveyor

Vigo.

CERTIFICATE OF VALUATION

The undersigned, Mr. Antonio Alonso Perez, Captain of the Merchant Navy and

Average Agent, in the name and on behalf of SIRCAI VIGO, S.l., at Vigo, at the

request of Mr. Alberto Penelas,

CERTIFIES:

Thai he has undertaken the assessment of the deep sea long-liner called

-GRAND PRINCE- and, bearing in mind the age of the vessel, her size, kind,

dass, speed, consumption and special particulars, as well as her present

market price, I deem that the vessel replacement cost, in a condition free of

damage and encumbrances is 60,655,838 pesetas (SIXTY MILLION SIX

HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND THIRTY EIGHT

PESETAS).

Taking into account an exchange of 1 FRF = 25,36 plas.

The vessel replacement cost in a condition free of damage and encumbrances

is 2,391,792 Frencl1 Francs (TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY

ONE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO FRENCH

FRANCS).

And for the record to the appropriate effed., this present is issued at Vtgo on the

frfteenth of March of the year !\Yo thousand and one.

Vigo, on the 15111 of March 2001 .

The Average Agent. (illegible signature).

PLEADINGS - MÉMOIRES

OBSERVATIONS DU GOUVERNEMENT FRANÇAIS

OBSERVATIONS – FRANCE 91

OBSERVATIONS DU GOUVERNEMENT I:RANCAlS

relatives i Ia demandc presentee.u 110m du Bclize de\llllt Ie

TRI8UNAL INTERNATIONAL DU DROIT DE LA MER

Presentee comme une demaDde de «pro~te lIIIilllevee de I'inmobilisatioa du U\1re de ptcbc "Gnad Princc" IU titre de "Irticle 292 de Ia Conventioa des Nltions Units JUr Ie droit dc b DlI:D, 11 rcquae Idressee Ie 21 maTS 2001 au TriMmll mterllltiooal du droit dc Ia mer plr Me Alberto Penelas Aivlrcz'u 110m du Belize nc SlUIlit eire rcgardCe conune iIItroduisanl uoe in$llDCC regie plr Its disposiliOllIO de I'.rticle 292, La demande ainsi prkent«.u nom du Belize n'entre ll1IIIifestement pIS dans les prCvisioos de Cd .rticle,

Le Gouvcmcmeot de Ia Republique fraq~lisc considtre qu'iI n'. dOllc pIS i presenter, CIl ce qui Ie conccmc, I'expose eo ripoose prew i l'articIe 111, plTlg.n.pbc 4 du RCg.lemeol du Tribunu

Deux strics de Tlisoos pcII\'Cllt ate in\'oquees i I'.ppui de cctte positioa. La unes timnCllt i Ia IIIturt meme de Ia proc«lure de p~temaillle>.ie. 1cs lutres decooJmt des cin:on$llllCCS qui CRtoureat Ia dtmmde.

1 - RJisons tt ll, nt i I. IlI ture de I. prMidure dt promptt mainlcvN

u procedure prb.'\Ie par l'article 292 I pour uniquc objet d'ISJUref Ia prompte tnlinlt\'ee dc l'inunobilisation d'un lIaWe des Ie depot d'une caution Tlisonnable, en attendant I'aboutissement des procedures judiciaircs intentecs contre Ie c'pitlillc ou Ic propriet. ire du navirt devant les juridiawlBs de I'ElII ayant procid6 i I'immobilisalion. Aussi, Ionquc les proddures judiciaircs mtmlcs Ollt abouti et, pw plrticuliCremmt, Iorsqu'elles 0111 collduit IU pTOllOlld d'unc OOIIdil1lllllioll j Ia confiscatiou du 1I1\ire, lout recours b.-enluel i 1a procidure de I'article 292 pcrd sa raison d'arc. En pareil cas., Wle deDllllde til prompte mUUevic cst depourvue d'objct.

Des Iors qu'un tribuna1 IIliollll, proaooce, j titre de sanction applicable, 1a cOllfiscatioa du nn'n'c, I'ouvefturt d'uoe iII$lance til mainlev« d'inmobilisalioll dCVIDI Ie Tribunal iDteraatioall du droi: de Ia mer 0011 seoIcrnenl n'cst plus possible IIl1is o'cst m6me pas OOIICCYlble. En cffct, dans Ie cadre d'une lI$lancc de ce typc, Ie Tribunll oe sc prononce que sur Ie caraaerc raisonnable de It Cluliou exigee pour OrdOll8cr la mainlevee de l'immobilisation du nlm Ce qui presuppose, d'une part, que de simples mesures provisoires lient etc prise, j litre conSCfVatoirc i I'egard du naWe el, d',utrc part, quc ces mcsures puissent a re rapportecs ou IIletrompues en echlngc d'une garantie d'cxecutioa des eventueUes criaDces de I'Etal sur Ie propriitlire du OI\1re. Or, It confis.cation proooocic par une cour de justice lIaliolllle i titre de peine priacipale ou .cccssoirc a pour efret de ITlnsrercr lutorit,iremtnl et de fl'tOn defmitr.'t i ]'Elalle bien faisanll'objet de It confiscation. l.c proprid:aire du uvirc se trou .... e demu de SOD litre plr dCcisioa de justice et ,' iI souhaite rcoowrcr ses droits sur Ie bien, ICJ \'Oics de recours qui lui SOIIt ofrcrtes ne ptu'o'tIIl plus consister ell une aetioa CD mainle>.,ee, puisqu'illlt peul plus are coosilied COIlllllC ticubite d' un droit de propriite sur Ie navirc.

De plus, 011 ne peut perdre de vue qu'en raisoo de It fonaion particuliere qui lui cst Issignee, Ia procedurc dc l' lrticle 292 nc peul inlerf'erer Ivc() les Ictions en jU$licc engagees plr l'Et.t cOtier interesse en we dc riprimcr les infrIaions Ii se. lois et riglemenlS commises plr Ie llI\1re ,yalll f.il I'objet d'une mesure d'immobilisation.

« GRAND PRINCE »92

, C'est cc qui n!sulte du pangnphe 3 de I'article 292 qui precise: 1<. • .Ie tribunal ... 11 ' , i connaitTc

que de II question de II maiolc\'Ce au de la mise en Uberti. SIDS prej udice de I. sui te qui Jeri donnec i 10llie .cdon donI Ie Davire, SOD propriet.ire ou son iquipage pcuvent etre I'objet dCYJnlla juridiClion nation, le apP"lpri«». Le teXlt anglais de celie disposition iodique: "without prejudice 10 the rneriu of any elSe before the appropriate domestic forum against the vesse~ its owner or its crew". Dans louIe instance penale cngagee i I' encontrc du clpitaiDe d'un navire de pecbe etranger pour violation des lois et

reglements de I'Etat cOlier, la dctemlinatioo de II peine applicable et II condamnation a celie petlllili foot partie integrante de ce que I'on appene «!.be meri1s», c'est- li-dire Je fond meme de I'affaire soumise i WI

tnbuoa! nalional comme J'iodiquc claircment Ie texte espagool de I'lnkle 292, paragraphe 3 (!!Sin prejuzgar el fond o de cualquier demanda inlerpuesta anle cltnbunal nacional H).

Le Tribunal inlCI'DAlional du droil dc La mer De peul, par Ie biais d'une procidure en promplC mainlevec, s'inlmiscer oi dans Ie deroulement ni dans Ie resukat d'une instance judiciaire interne. Or, lei seratt Ie cas si Ie Tnb uoalaccueillait La demaDde qui lui a etc presenlee Ie 21 mars IU Dom du Belize. U nc peul done accueillir, pour en decider a\'cc aUloritc de chosejusee, Ladite demande.

2 - Raisons lenanl au, circonsunCe5 de la dcmande

Le uWe "Grand Prince", surpris en infraction daDS La zone eronomique ITanlflise, a etc arr.isonne et apprehende Ie 26 di<:embre 2000 eI conduit i I' ile de La Reunion, 00 iI est arrive Ie 9 janvier 2001. Le Directeur des Affaires maritimes de La ReunioD • proD once la saisie conscrvaloire du navire, laquelle I ete conliml6e Ie 12 janvier par une ordonnance du Tnbunal d' instance de Saini-Paul qui a, en outre, fixe Ie mOlllanl de I. caution i verser pour perruetlre Ia mainlevee de cetle saisic. D'.ulre pan, Ie II janvier, Ie Substitul du Procureur de Ia Republique pres Ie Tnbunal de Grande Instance de Saint-Dellis I dresse un prOl.:Cs-verbal d' interpelLltioo i i'enconlre du Clpill.ille du naWe et, oonsiderant qu 'en I'espke I'ollvenure d'one information n'etait pas nc!<;essaire, a decide de citer directemenl I' interesse i comparaitre i I'audience du Tnbunal conectionnel du 23 janvier, en application des anicles 393 eI suivanls du code de procidure penale (ANNEXE J). Le jugemcnt du Tribunal conectionne~ rendu Ie jour memc (ANNEXE II). a prononcc ]a confiscation du nlvire "Grand PriDce" J\·CC execution imtntdiate (nonObstant un appel e-.·entuel). par . pplication de r.rtide 131-6,10° du code penal et 47 1 demicr alinea du code de procedure penale (ANNEXE JU ). II a en oulre condamne Ie Clpitline i une peine d'amende et i des dommagesiutmts.

Quels que soienlles recours qui ont ete ou poun.lent itre exerces par I'annateur ou Ie Clpitaioe du DaWe dans I'ordrejuridique ITalllflis i I'encontre de cejugement, l'Et.t du pavilloD ne peut plus desormais se fonder sur les dispositioos de i'anicle 292 de Ia CoovelltioD des Nations Unies sur Ie droit de II mer pour I ttraire II Fran~e devant Ie Tnollllli international du droit de I, mer, Dans Ie cas paniculier, Ie Tribunal ne poumit pas, en efret, ordouner II ]a France de procider i Ja prompte mainle\'tc de rimmobilisatioD du "Grand Prince" des Ie depOt d'une Clution ou d'une autre garantie dont il fixerait Ie monlanl et La forme, car iI s'ingererait alors dlDS 1a substance meme d'une .lIJ.ire penile qui a ete lrancbee par 11 juridiction franlflise oompetente; ~e qui est e:cpressement excht par les dispositions memes de I'anicle 292, ~onml(: il l ete rappele precedemment.

La demande presentee IU Tnbunalle 21 mars 2001 reconoait d'ailleurs iocidemment qu 'il DC petit plus itre questioo desormais d'obteoir nne quelconque mainlevee, que ce soit en fournissant onc garanlie raisonnable ou en versant la caution initialement fixee pIT Ie Tribunal d' instance de Sainl-P.ul: Ms a result, the ''esse! could nOI be released neither upon posting. reasonable guarantee, nor upon posting the bood initially fixed by the Firstlnstaoce Tnbunll of Saini-Paul» (paragraphe 28 de la demande).

Aussi cette demande cherche-t-eUe i SUTDlOo ter cette impoSSIoilitc en av.n~antla pretention qu'il y aurail eu , de Ia pan de II France, violalMlIl de ]a Convention de 1982 parte que. en decidant ]a confiscation du "Grand Prince" queiquesjours seulement apres I. fi:<ation du monllnt de la caution pIT Ie Tnbunal d' instlDce de Slint·PaU~ et en decidanl en oUlre I'execution provisoire de celie sanction en 'lie

OBSERVATIONS – FRANCE 93

l d'evner loute mainle ... ee de saisie • Ie Tribunal correctionnel de Saint-Denis aurail imagine un «artifice» pour se soustraire l UX exigeoces de !'anicle 73, pIlligrapbe 2 de 1.1 Convention (paragrapbes 24 et 25 de ta demande).

En invoquant (<{he artifice of deciding the confiscation nfthe vesse~ and its provisional execution, with the enough celerity to prevent its release by posting of any kiDd of guarantee) (paragraphe 311 La demande qui I ttc formuJee au nom de l'Ell t du Belize, outre qu'elle repose sur un pur et simple prods d'intentioo sans aucun commencement de preuve, ~onnait que les decisions prises pIT Ies lutoritis judiciaires &an",ises ront ete en pleine conformite avec les dispositions du droit nalional Ipplicables. En reaJile, ceue demande tend i alleguer \'existence d'un differend ponant sur Ia mise en o.'1lVTC par II Fl'IlIce des pouvoirs qui luj sool mannus par ranicle 13 de la Convention. Lc In pIllIIgraphe de Cd article precise que, dans ]'exercice de ses droilS souvera.ins sur les ressources biologiques de la zone economique excrusive, <d'Etat cOI:ier peut prendre loutes mesures, y compris l'alTlisonnemtnt, l'inspection, II saisie ec I'mtroduction d'une instance judiciaire, qui lui SODt necessaircs pour assurer Ie respe<:t des lois ec rCglemetlts qu 'il •• doples confonnelllent.l II CooveutiOIUt.

Est-i] besoin de nppeler que cette disposition I.isse 11.1 legislateur Dational Ie soin de definir.l ]a fois Ics deliu de peche et les pe.ulites applicables aux auteurs de ccs delits7 11 applrtient, en consequence, 11.1

juge Iational saisi d'un cas concret de determiner II peine i Ippliqucr i Ia mere des dispositions 16gi.slatr.·es eo vigueur, des prtu\'es qui lui sont apportees et des circonstances de I'.ffaire. La sewe limite qui soit apportee i l'exerci«: du pouvoir de sanction d'un Ellt cOlier est celie eooncee au paragraphe 3 de I'article 73 qui exclut les pemes d'~risonnelllent et tout lutre chitiment corporeJ.

De surcron, il convient de souligner que la confiscatioo d'un naWe de peche etrmger coovaincu d' infraction all."( lois et fI!gielllenlS eo IllItiere de pecbe dans Ia zooe Cconomique est une sanction parfaitementlicite au regard du droit intern.tional et qui est d' lilleurs express6nent prb.'lIe Don seulement par ]a legislation frm~ise, mais aussi pIT de nombreuses autres Jegislations nationales (par ex~le: Barbade, Comores, Fidji, Grenade, Guyana, Indonesie, lamarque, Mllaisie, Nouvelle Zelande, Nonige, Portuga~ Russie, Tanzanie).

II decoule des considerations prCcedentes que ce qui est eo &it. mvoque dans la demaode doni Ie Tribunal a ete saisi conceme non plus une question de maiolevee m.ais un differeod d'une autre nature portant sur l'exercice plr la Fnnce de ses droits SOU\'Cf1ins, differend qui, eo lout itlt de cause, n'entre pIS dans les previsions de I'article 292 de la Convenlion.

Or, si Ie Belize I donne pouvoir i une personne pour agir en son nom dans Ie ctdre de I'article 292, Ie titulaire dudit pouvoir ne petat pas preaeodre 19ir en debors de ce cadre et notlmment lelller de soumet.tre au Tribunal une question lulre que celie faisant I'objet de cet article.

Le Gouvememeot frm~is est done fonde i. coosiderer nOD seulemeot que l"instance est mal englgee, mlis encore que cette in.\UllCC n'. pas lieu d'arc. En d'autres temles, flce i celie dem.ande, Ie Tn"bunll dcvrait prononcer un non lieu.

Au surplus, s'lgissant d'un differeod du Iype de celui meoUonne ci.dessus, Ie Gouvernemeot fran ~lis SCfIil CD droit. de faire vlloir, confollDl!meot II l'article 297, plrlgraphe 3 a) de I. Convention, qu'il n'est pas tenu d' iccepter qu 'un td difrereod soit soumis i rune des procedures prewes i ]a section 2 de la Partie XV de Ia Conventinn sur Ie droit de Ia mer et que, dans ces conditions, Ie Tribunll international du droit de ]a mer, non plus qu 'luCUDe autre juridictiOD intem.ationale, n'a competence pour en connailre. Eo deposant son instrument de I1tificttion, Ie Gouvemement frm~ais a d'ailleurs formule une declaration en ce seos, conformement a r.rtic1e 298 pll1graphe I b) de II ConvCDtion.


4 Pour ccs motifs,

I.e Gouvemement de Ia Republique fr:an~ise prie Ie Tribunal international du droit de 11 mer, statulPI par voie d'ordonnancc et sans qu'i! soil besom de tenir d'audieuces publiques II eel eifel, de consuter que 11 demande de mainl~ec presentee Ie 21 mars 200111,1 nom du Belize e501 sans objet, qu'elle doit par suile Sue C<:lftec et qu'it n'y I des Iors pas lieu i ouvrir une instance,

Paris, Je 28 mars 2001

ANNEXES DES OBSERVATIONS 95

Annexe 1Code de procédure pénal français (extraits : articles 393 et 394)

ANNEXE I Extraiu du code de proctdW'e p6naIe ~1Ii5

Art. ]9] (I. n' 83-466 du 10 juin 1983) En nmIffl. cornctIonndk, ~pr~ avolr corutali I'ldentiti de b. penonne qullul tst: dtf&b;, lui avolr fait ~e Its faits qui lui JOllt repnxb& et aWlIr I'tCIIcll11 ses dki.u:1ltlOIll 51 elk en fait la dtmmde, Ie procuuur de Ia R~nque peut. I'll utIme qu'WIe Infol'lll2tkm G'at piS ~aIre, prodder = .e II eSt d1t aUI articles 394 i 396.

I.e ~ de Ia UpubUque lDfutme liors b pel'SOlIDC dBb!e dcvmt lui qu'cl]e a Ie droit i J'.u.stmnce d'lIll (I. n' 93·2 du -1 Jdnv. 1993) _ uoat ,. de son cbolx OIl c:ommll d'ofIia:. L'avoat choW au, dans Ie w d'lIDC dem.mde de commission d'offloI!, Ie Mtorurler de J'ordtt da aYOQts, en tst: nu6 sms deW.

L'3W11:at peut consultct sur-le-cbmp Ie dossier et communlquer Ilbrement avec Ie pr.!l't!I\1.

Mention de ees fonmIIlis est taUt ~u prods-vcrb.Jl i pdne de tlulUti de b. pmctdtm.

Art 19]·1 (I. 1f2000-St6 du lSJId!t 2000, art, l IS) Dans la c¥ prtws i ~'artI· &, 393, I~ v\ctimc dolt an: ~e par tout moyttI de Ia date cte I'audknce.

Art. 194 (I. If 83-466 du 10 juin 1983) Le pftltltmll' de la ~bUque peut: Invlttr Ia pmorme dBer= i compmltrc dcvant Ie tribwul dans un Mlli qui ne part' em Infbitllf 1 dll; Jgun, ~ mloncbtlon exprcssc de l'lntmm en pWcQa: de son a\IGCaI', nI nrpttIM' 1 deux mots. n lui notlflc Ies f:lltl reW:tUl lIOn encontre alnsI qQC Ie tIcu, b date d 111cutc de I'audlence. Cdte DOtifIcatIon, IlImtlonMc au ~.vt'l'bal dont copie cst f't1IIlse sur-Ic!-dlamp au prmnu, ~ citation 1 per. ~M<

L'a'II)Qt cholsI au Ie b1tonn1er est Infonn.!, par tout moytn ct sms deal, de Ia date ct de I'h~ de I'audlencc; mcnHoft de cd avls est po~ au prods-vetbal. (I. If 93·2 ~ 4 janv. 1993) _ L'avocat,. pM, 1 tout moment, tOnsult:cr Ie dossier,

S! Ie procurcur de 11 Rq.ubUquc cstIm/: ~ de soumetIre Ie pdvtnu Jusqu'l . ~ compuution. dmnt It trlbunaI lllllC OIl plusleun obllptlons du c.on~le judi. cbtre, II-Ie tradult sur-lt-clwnp dmnt Ie pdsJdent du trIburW ou le '~ dtlisui par luI, staluant CD chambre du cow avec l'asslsbnce d'lD\ snfBer. Ce ~ peut, aprh iudltlcft du ptivcnu, son (1. 1\" 93·2 du 4 jcmv. 1993) • avoQb ay.mt ttl! aw.! et entcndu en res obserqtlons, I'll Ie demiUule, prot'lODUl' ectte IIlesurt dans b amdltlons ct sulTant lei IlIQIh1It& ptivuel par Ies artIcln 138 (L 1\' .93-2 du 4j4nv. 1993) _d 139_. CelteW:istott est not!Mc vttbakment au prmnu et mentlCtlnie au procb.ver~ dont copIe lui est rtmbe sur·Jt..chiUl1p.


Annexe 2Jugement correctionnel du tribunal de grande instance de Saint Denis en date du 23 janvier 2001

CONTRADICJ'OlRE

JUGEMENT CORREcnONNEL DU ; 23 JANVIER 2001

N- de Jugemelll; 62101 N- de Parquet : 01396

A l'audience du TRIBUNAL CORRECT ONNEL, au Palais de Justice de SAINT DENIS Ie VlNGT TROIS JAN IER DEUX MILLE UN

cornpos~ de Moosleur BRUNET, Pruident" Madame l\fARTlNEZ, Juge AnesseUl. Mons.leur PRADIER, luge Aliscsseur,

l5Sis~ de MOQsifllr GIMONET Greffier,

en prUence de MQDSleur SENECIIAL, Substit t du ProcUleur de 1& RCpubliQ.ue a ~I.§ appclU I'afflire

ENTRE: Monsieur Ie PROClJREUR DE I.A REPUBUQ ,pUs oe Tribunal. demandeur et poursuivant,

• ARMEMENT SAPMER demeUlanl Darse de LE PORT. panie civile conslitu.§e par l'intenn I 'audience, 0011 comparante, reprhenl~ pat' Maitre • AKHOUN· CREOtrr· HAMEROUX,

• C.O.M.A.T.A. ckmeurant 1 rue Ambroise CROJ T97420 LE PORT, partie civile constitute par I'intcnntdiaire d'ull av compaf1Ultc, reprhenltc pac Maitte CREGllT, S • CREGtrr · HAMEROUX,

• ARMEMENT DES MASCAREIGNES · ARMEMENT LE GARREC partiu civiles constituees pill I 'inlenn~aire d ' un av t 11' audience, nOlI comparante, reprtsenl.§e par Maitre CREGUT, S BELOT· AKHOUN · CREOUT . HAMEROUX,

tt ELEVAGES


· 2·

MARINS DE LA REUNION I!:lisanl domicile BACH immeuble FU11JRA 190 IUt des de: CLOT(LDE, partie civile conslilu~ par I'intt I' audience, Don oomparante, reprtsent~e par Maitre - AKHOUN - CREGtrr . HAMEROUX.

ET,

NOM: PEREZ NOVO Ramon Franc'

DATE DB NAISSANCE: 05110/1957 LIEU DE NAlSSANCE: RIBIERA· ESP FILIATION: de PEREZ NOVO Jose et Jos~pha

NATIONALITE: ESPAGNOLE ADRESSE: RUA DA CARBALLEIRA 1 VILLE: ESPAONE SmJAllON FAMILIALE: PROfESSION: Capitaine De Navire

lamais condamne, libre sous controle judiciaire

I'flude d'avocal SCP canons is SAINTE

6diaire d'un avoca! a; GtTT. SCP BELOT

GNE NOVO MARTINEZ

RIBIERA

Comparanl et assist6 de Maitre ANTOINE. avo au Barreau de Saini Denis,

PUveDU de:

DEFAUT DE SIGNALEMENT O'ENTREE DANS LA ZONE ECONOMIQUE EXCLUSIVE

PECHE ILUCITE

A J'appel de la cause, Ie President a CODstati I'ideolil du prevcllu, a donnt connaissance de I'aetc: saisissanlJe Tribunal et l'a ' terrogt;

Us parties civiles flant rEgulihement constitutes our I'audience de ce jour;

I.e conscil des parties civiles. depose des oonclusi et a ~!e entc:ndu en sa plaidoirie ;

Le Minist~re Public. ~te entendu en 5(5 f~quisitio


·3 ·

Le pn!venu et son dtfenseur onl pr~sente ses yens de d/!feJ'Jse et Ie preveDu a eu la parole en demier ;

Le Greffier a tenu note du dUoukment des debats

Aprh en avair deliMIt conformiment Ala 10i, Ie nou.nal a statue eo ees lermes:

Par "intcnnediaire d'une interplite de langue cspa Ie, Melle BAllllF. Jaquelle a prete sennentd'apporter son concours a justice en son hODDeU! cl sa conscienct.

LETRIBUNAL

AttcndLl que PEREZ NOVO Ramon Francisco a t renvoye par dlcision du Procureur de la Rfpubliquc en date du 11 Janvi r 2001, regulihemcnI norifice Ie meme jour devanlle Tribunal Corrcctio d Ik ce si~ge, sur Ie fondcmcDt des dispositions des articles 395 ct uivants du Code de proddure ¢nalc ;

Attendu que Ie preveDu a oomparu, qu' il y a done lieu de statutr contradictoiremcnt a son corooke;

Attendu que PEREZ NOVO Ramon FranciKo c t preveDu:

d'avoiI dans 11 ZODe 6conomique exclusive des R6pubUque, cn l'es¢cc au large dcslLES KERG Australes et Antarctiques FRan~ise$.. couran notlmment i oompter du 24 d~cembre et depuis t ps non prescril. 6tant capitaine du navire "LE GRAND PRINCE", ba t pavillon ~tranger (BEUZE), omis de sianaler son entrfe dans la zone nomique exclusive el de d6clarer Ie tonnage de poisson d~tenu l bord." ' 1$ prtvus el riprimes A l'article 1 de la loi du 01.03.1988 modifie par la Ioi du 05 juillet 1996, les articles 1, 2,4,9, 11 de la loi du 18 juin 1966 mo . ~c par Ia loi du 18 novemhre 1997 et les articles 2 cl4 de la loi 83·sa du OS juillet 1983.'"

d'avou dans It zone ecollomique exclusive des R~publique, cnl'esptce au large des ILES KERG Australes et Antarctiques FRanyaises. courant dEcc du 24 au 26 deccmbrt 2000, depuis temps non pr iI, elant capitaine du aavire "LE GRAND PRINCE", banant pavillo ~tranger (BELIZE). pratiqu~ la ~he sans avoir obtenu d'autorisation rhlable des autorit~$ com¢temes."faits prevus et rtprimes l l'article 1 e la loi du 05 jullie! 1996,les articlts 1,2,4, 9. 11 de la loi du 18 juin 1 modifiu par la loi


·4·

du 18 novcmbre 1997 et les articles 2 et 4 de lill i 83-582 du 05 juille! 1983.'"

SUR L' AcrlON PUBUQUE

Attendu qu'il resu.lte de la prooedurc et qu'il n'est conlest/: que Ie Grand Prince est enUi dans 1a Zone Economique des Des erguelen sans signaler son entrEe et sans d&:iarer Ie tonnagt: de poissons ~leDu 1 bord el oe en violation de I'ankle 4 de la loi du 18 juin 1966 m . ~ par la loi du 18 novembre 1997. Altendu par ailleurs que lOIS de I'intervention de a frEgale "Nivose'" Ie navite elait en action de ~che illkite, une quinzai e de palangres cIanI 1 )'eau, Ie commandant de l'hllicopt!te de la frigate Nivose ayan! COl1statc Ie 26.12.2000 a 8h53 Ia prtseDCe de 6 bouees a 1 mer 1 450 metres du navite. Attendu qu'il n'est pas oonltst6 que cetlt pecht· ite a ele pratiquee de Carron consciente par Ie prevenu. Artendu que I'entree sans dfclaration dans la ZE constatee sont sufflsantes pour dernontrer que les po la cale provenaient d'u.ne pEche ilMgale, Ies ciroons navigation n',il pas ete tCmpli depui, Ie 23.12.2 encore fraiches se trouvaient i bord, consul colloordantt$.

et I'aclion de peche lIS sc trouvant dans

ces que Ie journal de et que Its Mgines

I des presomptions

Anendu qu'il convienl en cons6quencc de declarer amon PEREZ NOVO coupable des faits qui lui sont reprochi s. Attendu sur la peine. qu'il importe esscntiellemen dans« type de delit doni 18 d6couverte n&Cssite la mjsc en place d'· partanlS el coiileux moyens materiels, d'en eviter la reiteration et d'c picher Its coupables puisstnt tiler profit de leur action deJictueUe. Qu'it convient done d'ordonner la COnflSC&tiOD U navite el de ses accessoires ainsi que dll materiel de pectle et d produil de la pache actuellement saisi, i titre de peine de substitution a l'emprisonnernent, I'execution provisoite devant etre ordonnfe pour pe ettre I'cffectivitf de Ia pcine. Attendu «pendant que Ie tribunal doit tenir compt de la loyaute el de I, collaboration du prevenu et de son armateur, clem IS qui permellent de limiter a I, somme de 200 000 francs I'amende i . ser. Attendu qu'i l'issue des debats Ie prtvenu a sollia Lt. restitution de son passcport avec e,,~ution provisoire. Compte tenu de Ja peine prononcie et de l'a ce d'opposition du ministl:re public sur ce point, il Y a lieu de faire droi i cette demande.

SUR L' ACTION CIVILE

Attendu que ARMEMENT SAPMER, COMAT


-5-

MASCAREIGNES, ARMEMENT LE GARR et Ie COMlTE REGIONAL DE PECHE MARITIME et ELEVA ES MARINS DE LA REUNION se constiruent rtguli~rement panie civ Ie el sollicitent cbacun la somme de 100 000 francs ~ titre de dommagu t intirets ;

Leurs constilu!tons de parties civiles 50nl n~ceva les tt rtguli~res en la (onnej

II conviCllt de cons!ater que les amateurs acquitt t d'importants dIoits pour pouvoiI p&ber Iegakment dans la ZEE sub '~nt un prejudice certain du fait de Ia concurrence illtgale des pecheur pirates et du fait de l'tpuisement de la reStIVe de Itginc qui determine es quotas.

Compte-teuu des clements de la prodduTC et des d ts, Ie Tribunal. dispo&c: d'clements suffisants pourd~larer Ie prCvcnu respa ble du prejudice subi par Its parties civiles, de recevoir ees constitutions d'aJloucr la somme de 20 OCIO francs 1 chacun des umemenlS a litre de d mages inltr~t$loutes causes de prejudice confondues j ainsi que Ie franc symbolique au COMITE REGIQNALDE PEOlE MARITIMEet VAGES MARINS DE LA REUNION dont la tecevabilire de la partie vile n'est pas contest6e el qui a $ubi un prejudice moral de principe indisc table.

PAR CES MOTIFS

SUR L' ACI10N PUBUQUE

Statuant publiquement, en premier ressor! et par ju ement contradictolre, a l'egard de PEREZ NOVO Ramon Francisco;

Declue PEREZ NOVO Ramon Fnncisco cou 1& des faits qui lui sonl reprochts.

Coodamne PEREZ NOVO Ramoll Fnllcisco :

a 1 amende d~lictuelle de 200 000,00 eram:s (deux cents mille francs);

Ordonne 1a confiscation du navito el des accessoi s comme chose ayanl servi 11. comnlettre l'inb3ction avec execution provo ire par application des articles 131.6, 100 du code ptnal et 471 dernier alin a du code de procedure penale,

Par application de la loi du 5 juillet 1983, anicle paragraphe 2, ordonne la confiscation du materiel de pkhe saisi et anie e 4. das produils de la


-.-plebe saisis,

Ordonm: II restitution du passepolt de M" .. ,,", P~'tE2 NOVO Ramon Fnacisco avec execution provisoire ;

SUR L'ACTION CIVILE

• d GARREe et du PECHE MARITIME et ELEVAGES MARINS DE LA

les declare reeevables to leur constitution d,p.rtii ci',iI,

Concia.mne PEREZ NOVO Ramon Frandsco, i'~~~~~SAP~~MER, b COMATA,. L'ARMEM'ENT DES 1\ et L'ARMEMENT LE GARREC

- 1& somme de 20 000,00 Francs a titre de domn".+ ct inlt!r~1S l chacune de: "5 par1ies civiles;

Condamne PEREZ NOVO Ramon Fr.D':"'iio,~;(;ES au COMITE REGIONAL DE PECHE MARITIME et I MARINS DE lAREUNlON;

-la somme de 1 Franc symbolique 1 Ii., d, dom."I ... et interets ;

La pr&entc decision est assujettie. un droit fixe d'.I<""""" d' .. "","on! de six ceats francs (600 Frs) donI est u:devable condamne.

Le \OUI en application des wicles 406 et procedure ¢nale.

el 485 dn Code de

Et Ie present jugc:mc:nt II etf signe par 1, '''',id'nl ,lie Greffier.

l..E GREFFIER,


Annexe 3Code pénal français (extrait : article 131-6)

!!l~ t;' g- ~ ;; 8. 1:;'

~ ... g-'-'Ir§. > I" z

z II rn

" If rn

o • = n . 0 . -~

"


Annexe 3 (suite)Code de procédure pénale français (extrait : article 471)

ARTICLE 471 dernier alinea du code de procedure penale(L. n° 83-466 du 10 juin 1983) "Les sanctions penales prononcees en application (L. nO 92-1336 du 16 decembre 1992) "des articles 131-6 it 131-11 du Code penal" peuvent etre declarees executoires par provision,"

Minutes of Public Sittings – Procès-verbal des audiences publiques

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA TRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL DU DROIT DE LA MER

MINUTES OF PUBLIC SITTINGS

MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC SITTINGS HELD ON 5, 6 AND 20 APRIL 2001

The "Grand Prince" Case (Beliz9 v. France), PrompJ Release

PROCES-VERBAL DES AUDIENCES PUBUQUES

PROCt::S-VERBAl DES AUDIENCES PUBLIQUES OES 5, 6 ET 20 AVRil 2001

Maire du .. Graoo Prince 11

(Belize c. France), prMIple mainleVIkJ

For ease of use, in addition to the continuous pagination, this volume also contains, between square brackets at the beginning of each statement, a reference to the pagination of the uncorrected verbatim records.

En vue de faciliter I'utilisation de I'ouvrage, Ie pr6sent volume comporte, outre une pagination continue, I'indication, entre crochets, au d6but de chaque expose, de la pagination des proces-verbaux non corriges.

Minutes of the Public Sittings held on 5,6 and 20 April 2001

Proces-verbal des audiences publiques des 5, 6 et 20 avril 2001

MINUTES — PROCÈS-VERBAL110

"GRAND PRINCEM

PUIiLiC SITTING IIELI) ON 5 APRIL 2001, 3.00 P.M.

T ribunal

P'u~m: P'uid~nl CliANDRASEKHARA RAO; Vic~,P'~sid~nl NELSON; Judges CAMINOS, MAROTTA RANGEL. YANKOV, YAMAMOTO. KOLODKIN. PARK. MENSA I-I, 8AMELA ENGO, AKL. ANDERSON, VUKAS, WOLFRUM, LAING, TREVES, MARSIT, EIRJKSSON. NOlA YE, JESUS; Judge ad hoc COT; Rlg/SI,", CHnTY.

Belue Is r~pres~n t ed by:

Mr Alberto I'enelas Alvarez, AI'OCQI. Bar o( Vigo, Spain,

us Agem;

and

Mn. Beatriz Goicoeehea F6brcgu, Avocal. Bar of Vi go, Spain,

as Counsel.

Fra nce is represented by:

Mr Fraru;ois Alabrune, Deputy Director of Legal Affairs of the Ministry o f Foreign Affairs,

as Ag~nl;

and

Mr lean·Pierre QueneudC(:, Professor of International Law at the: Univenity o f Paris I, Paris, France,

Mr Michel Trinquier. Dcputy Director for the Law o f the Sea, Fisheries and thc Antarctic, Office o f Legal Affain o f the Ministry of Foreign Affai rs,

Mr Jacques BeIO(, Avocal, Bar of Saint-Denis. Reunion, France,

us Counsd.

2

MINUTES — PROCÈS-VERBAL 111

REPRtsENTATION -!I avril 2001, Iprb-mldi

AUDIENCE rUIJLlQUE DU 5 AVRIL ZOOI , 1511 00

Tribunal

PrlStllfs : M. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO, Prbidenf; M. NELSON, Vict·Prhidtlll; MM. CAMINOS, MAROTfA RANGEL, YANKOv. YAMAMOTO, KOLODKIN, PARK, MENSAH, BAMELA ENGO, AKL, ANDERSON, VUKAS, WOLFRUM, LAING, nEVES, MARS IT, EIRIKSSON, NDlA YE, JESUS,jugts; M. COT,jllgtl ad hoc; M. CHiITY, Onffitr.

Bclize cst reprtscnt i par :

M. Alberto Penelas Alvarez, avocat, membre du barreau de Vigo, Espagne,

comme agent;

" Mme Beatriz Goicoechea FAbregas, avocate, membre du barreau de Viao, Espagne,

comme cO/lStll.

La Francc cst reprtsenll:e par:

M. Fran~is Alabrune, direeleur adjoint' la direetion des afTaires j uridiques du Minist~re des affaires ~trangeres,

comme agent;

" M. Jean·Pierre Queneuclee, proreueur de droit inlemalional1 l'Universite de Paris I, Paris, France,

M. Michel Trinquier, sous-direclcur du droit de la mer, de. p&he. et de l'Antarctique a In dirc:c:tion des affaire. juridiques du Minist~re des affaire. I!trangeres,

M. Jacques Belot avocal • Saint·Denis de la Rlunion, France,

eommt co/lStils,

,


Opening or the 0 ... 1 Proceedings [PV.OI I2, Eo p. 4-6; F, p. 1- 3)

The Rflgistra,.: On 21 March 2001 an Application was filed on behalf of Belize against Fraoce for the prompt release o flhe fishing vessel Grond p,./ncf!.

1bc Application was made under article 292 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

1be case has bccn named TIff! "Grund Print:f!" CaSf! (BfIIlzf! v. Frol/Cf!) and entered in the List of cases as case No.8. Today the Tribunal will take up the hearing in this case.

Agents and Counsel for both Belil:e and France are prescnt.

The Presldellt: This public sitting is held punuant to article 26 of the Statute of the Tribunal 10 hear the parties present their evidence and arguments in the "Gralld Prillce" Case.

I call on the Registrar to read out the submissions of Belize as contained in its Application.

The Rlg/slrar: 1bc Applicant requests the Tribunal:

I. To declare that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under article 292 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sca to hear the present application.

2. To declare the present application admissible. 3. To declare that France fai led to comply wi th article 73,

paragraph 2, o f the Convention, as the guarantee fixed for re lease of Grand Prince is not reasonable as to its amount, nature or fonn .

4. To dcclare that France failed to comply with artic le 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention by having evaded the requirement of prompt re lease under this artic le by not allowing the release o f the vessel upon the postina of a reasonable, or any kind of, guarantee alleging thaI the vessel is confiscated and that the decision of confiscation has been proviSionally executed.

5. To decide that Fraoce shall promptly release the Grand Prince upon lhe posting of a bond or other security to be detennincd by the Tribunal.

6. To detcnnine that the bond or other security shall consist of an amount of two hundred and six thousand one hundred and forty nine (206, 149) EUTOS or ilS equivalent in French Francs.

7. To detenn ine tha t the monetary equivalent to (a) ]8 tonnes of fis h on board the Grand Prince held by the French authorities, and valued on 123,848 Euros (b) the fishing gear, valued on 24,393 Euros (e) the fishi ng materials valued on 5,6 10 Euros, totalling 153 ,85 1 Euros, shall be considered as security to be held or, as the ease may be, retwncd by France to this party.

8. To dctennine that the bond shall be in the fonn of a bank guamntee.

9. To determine that the wording o r the bank guarantee shall, among other things, state the following:

•


OPENING OF TIm ORAL PROCEEDINGS - j Apri1200 1, p.m.

A. In case France returns to the shiPO .... 1ler the concepts referred to under point 7 (of the present subm issions):

"'The bank guarantee it is issued in eonsidertltion of France releasing the Grand Prince, in relation to the incidents dealt with in the Order of 12 January 2001 of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Paul and that the iuutr undertakes and guarantees to pay 10 France such sums, up to 206,149 Euros, as may be determined by a fina l and firm judgement or decision of the appropriate domestic forum in France or by agreement of the part ies. Payment under the guarantee would be due promptly after receipt by the issuer of a WTillen demand by thc competent authority of France accompanied by a certi fi ed copy of the final and fi rm judgement or decision or agreement."

B. In case France does not return to the shipowner the concepts refern:d to WKIer point 7 (of the pn:sent submissions):

"1be bank gUllBntee it is issued in considertltion of France re leasing the GrtlOO Prince, in relation to the incidents dcalt with in the Order of 12 January 2001 o f the Court of First Instance of Saint-Paul and that the iuuer undenakes and guarantees to pay to France such sums, up to 52,298 Euros, as may be determ ined by a fi nal and firm judgement or decision of the appropriate domestic forum in France or by agreement of the parties. Payment under the guarantee would be due promptly after receipt by the issuer of II written demand by the competent authority or France accompanied by a certified copY of the final and firm judgement or decision or agreement."

10. To determine thaI the bank gUllBlltee shall be invoked only if the monetary equivalent of the security held by France is not sufficient 10 pay the sums as may be delennincd by a fi nal and finn judgement or dccision of the appropriate domestic forum in France.

The President: On 22 Mareh 2001, a copy of the Application WIIS transmitted to the Government of France togethcr with the Order of21 March 2001, in which the President ofthc Tribunal fixed 5 and 6 April 2001 as the dates for the hearing o f the Cllst.

On 28 March 2001, the Government of France filed observations regarding the Application filed on behalfofBcliu.

1 now call on the Rcgistrar to read out the submission of thc Government of France in its Observations.

,


1'11e Reglslrar: The Respondent requests the Tribunal:

by means o f an Order and without need of bolding public hearings for that purpose, to note thai the Application for release lodged on 21 March 200 1 on behalf of Belize is without objec:: l lsalU' objet], that it must therefore be rejected, and that there are thus no grounds to insti tute procttdings.

The PresidlulI: Copies of the Application and the Observations of the Government ofFranee have been made available 10 the public.

The Tribunal notes the presence in court of Mr Albc:no Pene las Alvarez, Agent of Belize, and Mr Fran~ois Alabrune, Agcnt of France.

I now call on the Agcnt of the Applicant to note the representation of Belize.

Mr Pelle/as AiI'Urez: Mr President, distinguished Members of the Tribunal, diSlinguished representatives of France, this is the first time that I and those on my team have acted befon: this international and relevant Tribunal, and I wish to Sly thai this is a big honour for us. Wc also wish to thank very much the Rcgistrar of the Tribunal fOl' his helpful and kind ass istance, which I hope bas allowed us to make the application from a formal point of view in the most correct way.

As advanced to the Tribunal, lhe State o fBclize has authorized me to act as an Agent, and Ms Beatriz Goicocchea 10 act as legal counsellor.

The President: Mlly I intcrrupt the Agent o f the Applicant? I have called on you to introduce your delcgation, thc representatives of Belize. Will you please do that?

Afr Pent/as Alvarez: Yes, Mr President.

Bealriz Goieoechca will act as legal counsellor. She is a Spanish lawyer who specializes in international and maritime law. Carlos Perez is also a lawyer and he will assist us in gcneral matters. I will make the full representations. They will just assist me.

Thank you very much.

The President: Thank you.

I now call on the Agent o f the Respondent to note the rcprescntation of France.

M . Alabmne : Je vous remercie, Monsieur Ie President, permettez-moi de presenter 1 vous-mfmes et awe membres du Tribunal les membres de la delegation qui represente la France devant votre Tribunal.

Je nommerai en premier lieu Ie Professeur Jean-Pierre ~neudC(: en qual iu! de consei!. Monsieur Michel Trinquier, 5OUS-directeur du droit de la mer et de l'Antarctique il ia direction des affaires juridiques IU Ministtre des affaiTC5 ttrang~rel el Maitre Jacques BelO1, avocal, egalement en qual itc! de tonsei!.

Je vous remereie.

,


OPENING OFTHE ORAl. PROCEEDINGS - S April 2001. p.m.

11w Prl!!Sld~nJ: Thank yOU.

Today both parties wi ll address the Tribunal on admissibility and jurisdiction. Tomorrow the parties will address the Tribunal on the other issues.

I now give lhe floor to the Agent of Belile.

7


""GRAND PRINCE"

A"Iument of Beli:t:e

STATEMENT OF MR PENELAS ALVAREZ AGENT OF BELIZE [PV.OII2, E, p. 7-9)

Mr Pene/as A/varez; Mr President, Memben of the Tribunal, distinguished representatives of France, as agreed, I will refer this afternoon only to the concrete question o f jurisdiction introduced by France in its letter of comments to the Application. However, in order to address this matter in a conect way, [ willnced to make some aeneral reference to the facts o f the case.

In our opinion, France is trying to avoid or obstaculize the present proceeding, arguing two dilTerent questions.

The fin t is that our Applicat ion is not admissible under article 292 of the Convention, in that the domestic court in La Reunion and the [criminal] eourt of Saint-Denis have decided to confi sc:ate the vessel Gruf!d Prince and to execute notwithstanding appeal the decision whilst the remedies of appeal are in course and obviously pendent of a fina l and finn decision.

In support o f this allegation, France argues that this Tribunal can only deal with the matter o f the reasonableness of the bond Of guarantee and with nothing e lse. 1be Tribunal, according to France, will not have jurisdiction or competence to deal with a case where a coaslal Slate, by application or. domestic precepl, impedes prompt release ora vessel.

Secondly, Francc is arguing that the objective of the Application is not whether France complied or not with the request for prompt release, as stated under article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention, but to qUc:5tion the legality o f French domestic laws, which, as France has pointed out in its letter o f comment, provide for confisc ation o f ships and imprisonment o f crews. On this basis, France understands that the procedure we have chosen, article 292, is not suitable. Literally what France is arguing - and I read page 3 of its letter is that: "the lonlyJ limit given for Ihe exercise o f sanctioning powers of a coastal State is indicated in paragraph 3 of article 713J, which excludes sanctions of imprisonment and corporal punishments-. This is what France is saying, that the measures thaI I coastal State can take 10 prevent fishing have these: limits only.

I think that without doubt it is very clear in our Application that the unique subject matter of the present ease is whether France has respected or contravened article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention. In other words, if in this case France provided the opportunity to release the Grand Princfl and, if so, if the eventual bond is I reasonable one. That is the only subject matter of this casc. Clearly, we are not questioning the merits of the case. That has been done in La Reunion where there will be an appeal and we are awaiting a date for thaI appeal.

We an: nOI discussing the eventual legality of the sanctions that French law contemplates for these eases. We have pointed out in our application that among these sanctions is imprisonment of the crew. It is clear that is 001 in eonfonnity with the Convention. Mr President, we an: IIOt dealing with or discussing that matter here.

France has forgotten. in its letter of comment, that the dispositions of the Convention relating to prompt release of vessels and crews prevai l over any domest ic precepts. As a eOl1SCquenee, a State cannot invoke a domestic law to justify a breach of this important article of the Convention.

Let me recall the jurisprudence of the case law of this Tribunal. In the Judgment in the "Comouco" Case, in paragraph 51, the Tribunal stated:

•


STATEMENT Of MR I'ENELAS ALVAREZ - , April 1001, p.m.

Article 292 of the Convention is designed to free a ship and its crew from prolonged detention on account of the imposition of unreasonable bonds in municipal jurisdietiollJ, or the failure of loeallaw to provide for re lease on posting of a reasonable bond, inflicting thereby avoidable loss on a ship owner 01" other persons affected by such detention.

This panjp1lph is self-explanatory. Point S9 of the Judgment in the M/V ~SAJGA." Case reads as follows:

For the purpose of the admissibili ty of the application for prompt release of the MiJl Saiga it is sufficient to note that non·compliance with article 73. pangraph 2, .. . bas been "alleged" and to eonclude that the allegation is arguable or sufficiently plausible.

I'oint 7[ I J of the same Judgment states:

In light of the independent chmeter of the proeccdinas for the prompt release of vessels and crews, when adop(ing its classific"ion of the laws of the detaining State. the Tribunal is not bound by the classification aiven by such State.

The preeep15 of the Convention and the ease law o f the Tribunal is also in line with other relevant international eonventions. Let me refer to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which in Articlc 27 states that "a State cannot invoke the dispositions of its domestic law IlS justification o f the breach of treaties" .

In our ease, what is very clear is that France is alleging. in support of its non-compliance with the prompt release of a vessel, several articles of its [PcnalJ Code, copies of which were annexed to France's leltcrofcomment.

I feel that France should also inform this Tribunal about the content of Article 55 of its Constitution, which consecratcs all these principles, and the universal principle of the superiori ty of intemational tre.tiet over domestie laws or reaulations. The article reads as follows: "Treaties or agr=ments regularly ratified or approved have, upon their publication, authority superior to intemall.ws ...

Mr President and distinguished Memben of the Tribunal, the sole subject matter of these procttdings is to determine whether }-'ranee acted in conformity with article 73.2 of the Convention, and consequently the Tribunal has very clear jurisdietion and competence to deal with the case by virtue of anielc 292.

Thank you very much, Mr President, distinguished Mcmben of the Tribunal, for your kind allcntion.

The President: Thank you.

There will now be a IS·minute break and then France will advanee its arguments when WI: reassemble.

Short rtcusfrom J.U to J.45 p.m.

The President: I now invite the Agent of France 10 make his statement.

,


Plaidoirie de I. France

EXPOSE DE M. ALABRUNE AGENT DE BELIZE fPV,DII2, F, p. 5-6J

M. Afabrune :

• GRAND PRtNCE.

Monsieur Ie Prisident, MessieUTS lea Juges.je ressens comme un grand honneur la charge que Ie Gouvemc:ment de la Rtpublique fran~aise m'. confife de Ie reprt.senter en qualilt! d'agent dcvant votrc: Tribunal.

Monsieur Ie Prisident, Messieurs les JURes, la France ('Slime que la seule question qui 51: pose en I'e,pece est une question prealable : celie de savoir 5i votrc Tribunal PCUI vllablement connaftrc de la demande priaentee au nom de Bclize. II s'agil IA d'unc question importanle. Elle cst cn cfTct dtpourvue dc preccdent et votTe Tribunal va f ire ament! iI. prendre sur ce sujet une d&:ision de principe.

VOlre dtcision confinnera les limitcs que la Convention des Nations Unics sur Ie droit de la mer I fixfes pour Ie recours l son article 292. Celie d&:ision dt!tenninera donc la ponte que votre Tribunal donne, en eonfonnilt! avec la Convention, • la proc6dure en prompte mainlevee privue par cel anicle.

La dirrerence entre la demande prisentee au nom du Belize et les arraires concernant III France sur lesquelles votTe Tribunal s'esl deja pencht, celie du K CamQUCO II ou celie du • Moml! Conjurco II, celte diITerence eSI capitale. Dans cea deux a ITai res precc!dcntes, votre Tribunal avai t en errct a connaitre dc demandes de main levee presentees A un moment ou les procedures introduites devanl les juridictions nationales etaienl en coun el ces proctdures n'avalent pas aboUlI A un jugement sur Ie fond.

C'ctai! Ie cas dans l'Affairtl du • Camouco II dans laqucUe, vous vous en souvencz, la proctdure judidaire engagee contre Ie capitainc ttait encore au stade de I'instroction lorsquc vous vous fte, prononces. Ct!tail aUlSi Ie cas dans I'Affaire du K Monte Corrjurco II dans laqueUe I'audience lur Ie fond devant Ie juge national ne devai! avoir lieu qu'apres Ie dtroulement de la procedure en prompte mainlevee devanl votre Tribunal.

Dans Ie cas present, au contraire, C! pour la prcmi~re fois, on cntend saisir vot re Tribunal d'une demande en mainlevce alon que l'aetion judiciaire devan! les juridicI ions nationales COmptlenleS a dtjil. abouti • un jugement sur Ie fond de condamnalion c! alors mcme que celie condamnation consiste notammenl en une mesure de confiscation du navire immobiliS4!. VoilA la difftrence majeure entre la prtsente ('Spece el les deux .rraires prtctdentes,

Dans ce contexte, une action cn mainlcvee n'esl plus possible el e11e n'est mfme pas concevable. Lea raisons en ont tIe exposeea de mani~re synlhctique, de mani~re risumec:, dans les observations ccrites qui onl etc presenttes au Tribunal par Ie Gouvcmemenl de la Republique fmn~aise, et ces raisons vont f ire' prisenl developpCe5 de mani~re plus dctaillee pat Ie Professeur Jean·Pierre Qufncudce, auquel, Monsieur Ie Presidenl, je vous semis reconnaissant de bien vouloir donner la parole.

Je vous remercie, Monsieur Ie I' resident.

"


EXPOSt DE M. QUtNEUDEC - S a"";I200I, ilpI'ft-midi

EXPOSE DE M. QUENEUDEC CONSEIL DE BELIZE [PV.Olf2. F, p. 6-15)

M. Quincudt!c : Monsieul Ie President, Messieurs les Juges, c'est assun!ment un honneur de a'adresser .. nouveau au nom de la Fmnce au Tribunal international du droit de Is mer. Cel honneur se double ividemment du plsisir de retrouver un cadre qui nous est disonnais fsmilier. Qu'il me soit permis d'ajouter cepcndant que, III foree de se renouveler trop fliquemment, ce plaisir risque de a'imousscr.

Monsieur Ie President, il me revient d'entrclenir votre haute juridielion du probl~me esscnliel qui se trouve pose par la demande presentie au nom du Belize sur Ie rondemen! apparent de I'article 292 de In Convention des Nations Unies sur Ie droit de la mer concernant la si tuation du navire de ¢che Ie Grand Pril1ce. Celie demande sou l~ve en elTet une question prtalable, comme I'a dit III I'instant I'agent du Gouvemement frant;:ais, ques tion petalablc qui est celie de savoir si Ie Tribunal PCUI valablement connailre de la requele qui lui a iii priscntte.

Scion nous, la dcmande soumise au Tribunal Ie 21 mars, tendanl II ouvlir une instance en mainlev« de I'immobiliaation du navire Ie Grand Prince, n'entre pas dans les previsions de I'article 292 de la Convention et ne saurait done eire lCeueillie par votre Tribunal. C'es! ce que je voudrais m'attacher II demontre!. Aux fins de celie demonstration, je n'entends pas entrer dans I'examen du fond de la demande du Belize puisque la presente audience est consacree awe problemes de compc!tcnce CI de recevabilili.

La requetc: doni on vous a saisi souleve en elTel une question qui cst lout" fait preliminaire, pour ne pas dire une question prt-preliminaire, sur l&quelle devra m!cessairemenl ponC! d'abord VOIre deli~re. Jc vais done m'en tcnir ! I'expose des raisons pour lesquelles la demande du Beli~e ne peUI pas etre regardee comme re levant de l'article 292. Les membrcs du Tribunal savenl miewe que personne que, dans Ie cadre de la procidure particuli~re privue par I'article 292, iI existe dea limites strictes, non seulement qUlUlt" ce qui peut o!lre demande par I'auteur de la requfte, mais aussi quant .. ce qui peut o!lre dicide par Ie Tribunal.

Rappelons simplement que celte procedure toume tOUI enti~re autour de deux elemenls, et de deux elements seulement, III savoir :

d'une part I'apprecilllion du bien-fondi de I'alligation avancee par l'Etat du pavilion, allegation selon laquelle l'Etal cOtier n'aurail pas respeele unc disposition spc!cifique de la Convenlion privoyant II prompte mainlev« de I'immobilisalion d'on navire des Ie de¢' d'une caution suffisante;

d'autre part, deu"i~me element, I'apprieiation du el11lCl~re raisonnable de la caution, si I'allc!galion prtcedcnte parait fondee, et la dttennination eventuclle du monlanl et de la fonne de la caulion dont Ie depOt doit conduire l'Etat cOtier , pro<:eder sans dtl,i • la mainlevie de I'immobilisation du navire.

En outre. comme Ie precise Ie paragraphe 3 de I'anicle 292, IOr5que cette procedure paniculi~re esl mise en oeuvre, Ie Tribunal ne peut connailrc que de la question de II mainlevee, el je cite la Juile du paragraphe : «sans prejudice de la suite qui sera donnie .. loute Iction doni Ie navire, son proprielaire ou son equipage, p!:uvent o!lrc l'objel devant la juridiction nationale approprite (withaut prejudice 10 Ihe merils of any case before Ihe appropriale domestic forum) JO. Ce qui signifie que Ie fond de I'affaire dans laquelle est implique Ie navirc 0lI son clpitaine devan! one juridietion nationale uhappe au domaine cowen par eel article 292.

"


• ORAND PRINCE.

I'ar cons~quent, la recevabiliu! d'une demande de main lev~e et la competence du Tribunal pour en connaitrc, rencontrcnt une imponante limite rCIIlont maurlae. II cst inutile bien entendu d'insister sur ce point sur Icquc:1 Ie Tribunal a lui-m!me eu d~jA une Sl!rie de prononc~s ant~rieurement lla ~sente instance.

Ce n'cst cependant pas Ie seullypc de Iimites appont .. une instance en mainlev~e . II en existe semble-I-il au moins une lutre qui lient l I. swvenanee d'un tvtnemenl prenant place enlre la date de I'immobilisation du navire el Ie moment OU I'on prttend introduire une instance en mainlevee, lorsque cet ev~ncment est de nature .. rendre vaine toute requete sur Ie fondcment de I'article 292. II ne s'agit donc pas d'une: limite: de natun: te:mpofdle:, qui dttoule:rait de: I'~coulement du temps ou de I'existence d'un quelconque d~lai de forclusion. D'ailleurs, dans l'Affalre du f( C"mouco., Ie: Tribunal avail pdcisl! que I'article: 292 n'imposait pas de: limite: ou de condition rotlone lemporis et iI avait dl!clarl!, je: cite: Ie: paragraphe: 54 de I'antt : «I'anicle ne: requie:n pas de l'Elal du pavilion de soumeltre une: demande .. un moment paniculier apres I'immobilisation du navirc •.

II ne s'agit donc pas d'une: limite dc nature te:mporelle. La limite l laquelle je me riRre apparai\ plutOI eomme une limite que I'on pourrait qualifier, pardon pour ee nrologisme, de limite rolloM e~'f!n/us. Une telle limite ratione even/us n'est cenes pas expressi!menl inserite dam In textes, mais elle cst nkcssaircment impliqul!e par la fonction assignl!e l la procedure de mainlevee.

Le Tribunal n'a pas eu .. ,'en ptWccuper dans les trois .ffaires de prompte mainlcvee donI it a I!tl! saisi jusqu'l present paree que Ie probl~me ne Ie posait pas. Pour la premi~re fois.. iI doit y faire face aujourd'hui et prendre sur ce point une d«ision qui, nous n'en doutons pas, sera une d~cision de principe appc:lee, comme on dil, l faire jurisprudence. C'est predstme:nt cette limite, que je: me pennets de: qualifier de limite rotlone even/us, A laquelle se heurte: en premier lieu la demandc presentee au nom du Beli1.C' et qui fait apparailre celte demande comme absolument irTe(:evable. Ce sera la Ie prcmier point que: je: developperai dans mon exposl!.

Mais celie demllnde rencontrc, d'autre part, un deuxi~me obstacle qui tient A ce que Ie Tribunlll ne dispose PIiS de III com~tence nt:cessllire pour pouvoir connllitrc de la rcquete, telle: qu'e:lle I I!tI! prl!sentl!e. Je traiterai de eel aspect dans un deuxi~me point de rna presentlltion.

It cst enfin un troisi~me aspect qui d&:oule des considt:rations prtc&lentes et sur Icquc:1 Ie Gouvememenl fran~ais a insistl! dIllS les observations &:rites qu'il I adrcsSl!es au Tribunal Ie 28 mars : I'instance que pretend introduire la rcquEte du Belize n'l pulieu d'etre. Elle est proprernent incxistanle. Ma plaidoirie: se tenninera, Monsieur Ie President, par la priscnlltion de: ce: troisi~me point.

Je vais donc envisager .. prisenl successivcment, d'.bord I'irrccevabilitt: de la demande, puis I'incompetence du Tribunal pour e:n connllilre, el enfin, en troisi~me: lie:u, I'inconsistance en I'espece: d'une: instance au litre de I'article 292.

Tout d'abord, I'irrecevlbilitl! de III demande. La rcquc!te du Belize doit etre regardc!e comme irTe(:cvable parce qu'etle a tt~ soumise au Tribunal Ie 21 mlrs dernie:r alors qu'l!lIit intervenu, deux mois aUp!lravant, Ie 23 janvier, un jugemenl de eondlmnation faiSlnt suite A rlction dont Ie capitaine du nlvire Grand Prim:~ avait flit I'objet devant la juridiction fra~aise appropriee. Or, I'institution de la procl!dure de mainlevl!e de l'anicle 292 Ipparail liee l I'existence d'W\C instance judiciaire .. venir ou dl!jl en eours devant les tribunaux internes de l'Etat cOlier, bien qu'dle Klit pourtant enti~rement distincle de celie action judiciaire interne.

La proe&lure de I'anicle 292 presuppose en effet que I'instance judiciairc interne, ou bien n'ait pIS encore ~tl! fonnetlement ouvene, comme c'l!tail Ie CIS dans Ics IffaiTe5 du It SAIGA. II et du It Camouco II, ou bien que cettc instance interne soit encore pendlntc: devant

"


EXPOS~ DE M. QUeNEUDEC-S avriI200I,.prb-midi

les juridictions nationales, comme dans l'Affain du • Monte ConJureo _, c'est..j-dire que II proddure de I'article 292 prtsuppose que I'instance judiciaire interne n'ait pas encore abouli • une d~ision sur Ie fond.

Lorsque l'Etal du pavilion d'un navire de peche est amene '" recourir • la procedure de I'art icle 292, c'esl dans un but bien prtcis. C'est afin de pcrmettre au proprietllire ou • I'armateur de rt<:uperer Ie navirc sans avoir • altendre I'aboulisscment d'une action judiciaire introduile par les aUlorites de l'Etat cOlier.

Aussi peut-on dire, a contrario, que Jorsque cette action jooiciaire interne I abomi, c'cst·.-dire Jorsque l'in5taocc judiciaire interne n'est plus pendante devant un tribunal national, Ie reeoun • la proc6d~ de I'article 292 tend. perdrc non sculemcnt tout interit, mais mfme. perdn: loute rai$On d'ftrc.

Ce n'est pas une affirmation gratuite. Cest ce qui est implique par Ie texte mfme de I'article 292. Le paragraphe 3 de cet article 292 utilisc I'expression, je cite,« sans prejudice de la suile qui sera donnee • loute act ion ». L'utilisation du futur indique on ne pcut plus elairement que I'on sc place bien dans la perspective d'un jugement qui sera rendu ulterieurement par Ie tribunal national comp(!tent.

Dc mfme, la fonnule « sans prtjudice It elle·meme nc pcut se comprendre que dans Ie sens « sans pn!juger It, comme Ie montre d'ailleuTS plus ncltement Ie texte anglais : « wilhoul pnjudice 101M merits oj ony case •. Ce qui signifie qu'iI ne saurait etn: question de decider d'avance de porlCr un jugement premature ou de prevoir par conjec:ture.

Mais c'est auss i ce qui resulte du Rtglement du Tribunal lui-mlme. L'article 114 du Rtglement du Tribunal consacrt au dc!pOt d'une caution aupres du Tribunal lui·mfme ct dans Ie paragraphe 2 precise, je cite:

Le Grefficr Cnd05SC ou transmet la caution ou autre garantie financitre *' l'Etat qui. immobilise Ie navire, pour lutanl qu'elle eSI requisc pour qu'jJ soil donne suitc i I'anit, scntence au dc!cision definitive de ]'autorite compc!tenle de l'Elal qui a proc6de *' I'immobilisation.

Au seul vu des lextts, iI eSI donc bien evident que la saisine du Tribunal au titre de I'article 292 eSI con~ue comme devlnl illlervcnir avant que les procedures internes cngagc!cs contre Ie navire ou son capitaine aienl elles-memes abouti i une decision sur Ie fond. Db lors, on voil mal comment la 58isine du Tribunal sur la base dc CCI article pourrait prendre place apres qu'une decision sur Ie fond a ete prisc par lajuridiction interne approprite.

Monsieur Ie President, cetle lecture des textes applicables se trouve d'iutre part c:onfirmee par l'interprttalion qu'en a donnee et l'applicltion qu'en a faite Ie Tribunal luimfme dans les affaires de mainlevte doni il a ete 58isi jusqu'ici. Ainsi, dans l'Affaire dll navire "SA/Gil. ., I'anil du 14 dc!cembre 1997 prtcisa, " propos prtcisemenl des rapports enln: la procedure de I'article 292 et les procc!dures nationales, et je cite un passage du paragraphe 49 de cet arret:

5i les EUlu qui SOn! parties*, la proddure devanl Ie Tribunal sont lies par l'arTtl adople par Ie: Tribunal pour ce qui est de II mainlevee ct de la caution ou autre garantie, les juridietions nationales ne sont pas, lOTS de I'examen de la question quanl au fond, lites par les constatalions de fait ou de droit que Ie Tribunal a pu faire pour aboutir *' scs conclusions.

Monsieur Ie Presidcnl, comment pourrai t-on affirmer que les tribunaux nationaux ne sont pas tenus par les constatalions failes par votre Tribunal, si on ne pattait pas du prc!suppose

"


c ORAND PRINCE »

logique que I'intervention de ees tribunaux nationaux est postc!rieure II un antI rendu par vous en matiere de mainlevee 1

Cela fut rappele sous une autre fanne dans I'arret rendu dans l'Affalre du /I Monle Conjurco.oU Ie Tribunal, reprenant les tennes de I'article 292, indiqua,je cite encore :

La procedure prevue .. eel article ... ne Aura it, par consequent, coneerner que la question de la mainlcvl!e et de la liberalion, sans prejudice de la suile qui sera donnl!e A loute action dont Ie navin:, $On propril!taire ou son I!quipage peuvent eire l'objet devant lajuridiction nationale appropril!e.

On en trouve I!galemenl un I!cho dans ]a dl!cision rendue par Ie Tribunal dans I'Affoire du I( Camollco • ou ill!tait re levl!, je cite encore, et iI s'agit celie foi s du patagraphe S8 de I'antl I( C(lmouCQ » :

I'article 292 autorise la soumission d'une demande de mainlevee aprh une coune pl!riode (\ comptcr du moment de I'immobilisation ct, dans la pratique, les recours internes ne peuvent oonnalement pas eIre I!puises dans un dl!lai aussi court.

Dien que fonnull!e a propos de ]a oon-applicabilitl! de La regie de l'l!puisemenl prl!alable des recours internes dans Ie cadre de l'article 292, celie observation de l'arrEl I( CQmouco., I'observation ainsi faile par votre Tribunal, traduisait poumnt, semble-t-il, la conviction qu'une action au titre de l'articJc 292 prend neeessairement place en attendant I'aboutissement des actions judiciaires enpgtes dans ]'ordre interne.

II esl donc pennis d'affinner qu'une dcmande preseml!e en vertu de I'article 292 n'est plus recevable • parti r du moment ou un tribunal interne a statue et adopte une decision sur Ie fond dc ]'aclion inlentee contre ]e eapitaine du navire. En pareil cas, on pc:ut dire qu'une demandc de mainlcvee soumise au Tribunal se heurtc a une fin de oon-recevoir qui reprl!senle un obstacle definitif a I'ouverture au A la poursuite de I'instance regie par I'article 292. Sinon, i1 faudrait admettre que Ie Tribunal, en se prononyanl sur une demande de mainlevec, aurai l Ie pouvoir de tmnsfonner I'action en mainlevec en unc action en reronnation d'W\ jugement nalional, ce qu'il n'a evidemment pas Ie pouvoir de faire, comme il rut c1airemcnl precise dans Ie demier arret de ce tribunal, je cite un extrait du patagraphe 72 de i'anil I( Monl~

Conjurco» du 18 decembrc 2000 : «aux tennes de I'article 292 de la Convention, il (Ie Tribunal) n'esl pas une instance d'appel I. i'encontre d'une decision rendue par uncjuridiction nationale •.

Le moyen que nous ava~ons ainsi, A I'appui de ]a these soutenue par la France de I 'irrceevabilil~ de la demande, ne consiste pas a tenler de faire prl!valoir une decision judiciaire nationate sur une obligation intemationale decoulant d'une convenlion en vigueur, contrairement (\ ce que semblait dire la partie adverse dans ses ecritUlCS et contrairement II ce qu'a dill'agent du Belize lout A l'heure. Le moyen que nous invoquons dl!coulc en realite de la letlre et de I'esprit de la disposi tion conventionnelle relative A la prom pIe mainlcvee lelle qu'elle a ell! interpretee par \ajurisprudence du TribW\al.

De sureroit, dans Ie eadn: de la proctdure de mainlevte, lorsqu'il est amenl! (\ I!valuer Ie monlant raisonnable d'unc caution, Ie Tribunal sc fonde sur une ~rie d'elements et tient compte notammenl des peines susceptibles d'~tre encourues, comme par exemple, Ie monlant possible des amendes ou encore la confiscation eventuelle du navirc et des engifl5 de pfehe. Mais la prise en compte des pl!nalitl!s encourues, possibles, eventuclles, pour d~tcnnincr Ie montant de la caution cst la simple traduction du fail que la caution a aussi pour objet d'apporter A l'Etat c6tier une garantie qui lui permettra, en cas de bcsoin, d'assurer ]'execution

"


EXPOS£ DE M. QU£NEUDEC_' ...... il 2001, ~idi

effective des pc:ines lorsque eelles-d seront proooncees. Commcnt, dh lors, pourrail-on concevoir la saisine du TribWUlI pour qu'il fixe une eaulion apponant une lelle garanlie d'ex&ution des pc:ine, ., venir, lorsque ces demieres ont deja tte prooonc:ees., cI sunout lorsquc la confiscation du navire eonstituc I'une de ees pc:incs ? Monsieur Ie Pn!sident, pour lOUles eel raisons, nous considc!rons que la requ€te du Belize est im::ccvable el nous pri0l15 Ie Tribunal de d&larer qU'elh: n'est pas recevable.

Cene requele oc soultve toutefois pas uniquemenl un probltme de reccvabi li lc!, eHe butte auss; sur un autre obstacle qui eonsiste en ee que Ie Tribunal n'est pas comptlenl pour eonnaitre de eene demande lelle qU'elle II elc! fonnulee.

J'en viens mainlenant, Monsieur Ie President, au deuxitme point de mon expose consacri., I'incompttcnce du Tribunal.

Soutenir I'araument de I'incompttence de la juridiction internationale ., laquelle on s'adreS5e n'est pas toujoun un exercice agrt!able pour eelui qui plaide, ni d'ailleurs pour les juge5 qui lui fon t I'honneur de l'ecoUler. Fort heureusement, 5i I'exercice n'esl pas agreable, dans ce CIIS particulier, il eSI relativement facile" accomplir, ear iei I'incompc!tence du Tribunal est tellement manifesle qu'elle s'impose presque comme une evidence et n'appc:llera done pas une longue demonstration.

Aux yeux du Oouverncment fran~lis, en e ffet, Ie Tribunal ne saurait trouver dans I'article 292 de II Convention une base de compttence pour connaitre de la requele du Belize telle qu'elle I ttt presentee, el iI n'exisle par ailleurs aucune base de compttence sur l&quelle Ie Tribunal pourrait sc fonder si, par extraordinaire, iI d&idail de te-qualifier la tequete presentee par Belize. 11 convient done d'cnvisager succcssive:ment ees deux aspc:cts : I'incompetence du Tribunal d'une part dans Ie cadre de I'article 292, et d'autre part I'ineompc!tence du Tribunal en dehors du cadre de cet article.

Tout d'abord, dans Ie cadre de I'article 292 de la Convention. Dans les trois alTaire, pr&edentes relatives' des dcmandes de prom pte mainlevc!e, Ie Tribunal a toujours pris soin de verifier que sa comptle:nce pour eonnaitre de: ces de:mandcs ttait t tablie en ,'assurant en particulier de la qualile de Panie' ., la COnvelltiOn des Nations Unies sur Ie droil de la mer des dcux EtalS eoncemes.

Dans Ie cas present, Ie Belize et la France sont des Etats Panies ., la Convention el sont, de ce fait, soumis i!. la jUridiction du Tribunal prevue par I'article 292 de celie Convention. TOUlefois, lorsqu'iJ est saisi en application de cet article, Ie Tribunal doit aussi v\!rifier que la question qui lui cst soumise possMc bien les qualifications paniculitres qui sont re:quises par Ie titre: de juridicI ion invoquc!.

Or, bien que du point de vue procc!dural, Ie Tribunal ait ele apparemment saisi en application de I'article 292, la requete qui lui e$t presentee rc:couvre en realite un differe:nd plus large qu'une demande en promple mainlevee. Ce qui est en cause, en elTet, e'est la question de savoir 5i I'application de la loi fran\":aise par les autoriles judic:iaire:s fr&n\":aises com:spond 4 ce qui est pcrmis par la Convention sur Ie droit de la mer. En particulier, Ie rcquerant cherche 4 faire dire et juger par Ie Tribunal que la loi fran~aise prevoyant la confiscation des navires de pecht coupables d'infractions et J'applicalion qui a ett faite de celie loi par Ie lribunal con-eclionnel de Saint-Denis de la Reunion ne sont pas conformes ., la Convention. D'autre part, Ie re:qutrant tend !l. demander au Tribunal de statuer sur Ie deroulement des procedures judiciaires fran~aiscs qui onl abouti , la condamnation du capitaine du Grund Prince et' la confi scation de ee navire:.

Une illuslnltion en a ele foumie dans la prt!tendue replique que, de fa~on IlSSCl.

surprenante, Ie requerant s'est Ct1.l autorist , adresser au Tribunal. en reponse aux Observations c!criles du Gouvemement fran~ais, et qui, je Ie signale en paSSlnt, est en conlnldiction flagrante avec les dispositions de I'article III , paragraphe 6, du R~g1emenl, alors pourtant que Ie re:querant prelend sc siluer uniquement dans Ie cadre de la procedure de

"


«GRANO PRINCE_

mainlevfc organisfc par cClle disposition du R~glement. Celie ripliquc ou soi-disant riplique insiste Slit la pritention selon laqueUe il 'i aurait eu de la pan de la France, je cite, \me violalion grave et nagrante de la Convention risultant de la tenue d'un procts rapide et sommaire.

II ne s'agit plus, on Ie voit, d'une simple a11~gation selon laqueUe Ics autorites f~ise5 n'auraient pas respect~ les dispositions de la Convention prtvo)'ant la prompte mainlevfc de I'immobilisation du navire dts Ie dep5t d'\me caution $uffisante. La demande du I3cli;.:e tend en fait, par Ie biais de I'article 292, A portcr devant Ie Tribunal une question que, dans lcs droilS anglo-saxons, on poumit nommcr : «dim/til ofprocedllrtll fairness tlnd of due process /n relat/oll to judicial proceedings _.

Dans Ie cadre de l'artkle 292, Ie Tribunal n'est cenainement pas compelent pour se prononcer sur de telles demandes qui n'entrent pas dans les previsions de cct anicle. Lcs termes memes emplo)'!!s dans la requele en sont la meilleure illustration que I'on puisse donner. Le requerant a en effet cm bon d'affinner que les autorites judiciaires fran>;a iscs oVlient use, je cite, « d'artifiee _, qu'elles aVlient eu re(:ours A un subterfuge et que leur action s'apparentail A une fmOOe A 10 loi.

Ces propos IOnl en cUlt-memes riv~lateun, lis suffisent l montrcr que nous semmes iei bien loin d'une simple question demailllevfc. Des lors Ie Tribunal,je Ie ri¢te, ne dispose pas, en vertu de I'article 292, d'une com¢tenee pour appricier les ~l!!ments sur lesquels repose la demande du Bcliu. S'il dtcidait neanmoins de retenir la requele qui lui a el~ soumise, ne risquerait-il pas de s'expoSCT lUX risques de commeltre un excts de pouvoir el de se voir reprocher un « misuse of power »?

II e:dste Ioutefois une autre raison l I'incompetence du Tribunal pour connaltre de celie demandc. Celie autre raison se situe en dehors du cadre de l'article 292 el it convicnt d'en dire simplement quelqucs mots.

Puisque les elements sur leIQuels repose la demlnde du Bcliu n'entrent pas dans Ie cadre de I'articlc 292 sur la prompte mainlevfc, e\ que par consequent Ie Tribunal n'a pas com¢tence pour examiner la requete au titre de eel article, il est n«essaire de se poser 10 question de savoir 5'il peut existcr une autre base de compc!tence qui pourrait etrc avancee compte lenu du but poursuivi par celie lUIuete.

Comme on 1'1 vu, celie rcquete mel plus ou moins direetement en cause le$ conditions d'cxereice par II France en tant qu'Etat c&ier de ses droits souverains et de sa juridietion dans la zone economique exclusive. En d'autfCs termes, derri~fC l'apparence d'WlC anodine demande de mainlevtt, se dissimule cn rialite un differend d'OrdfC plus g!!neral. Or, Ie Tribunal n'a ab$Olument pas competence pour connaitre d'un tel differend.

11 n'esl pas contesle en effet que, en tanl qu'Etat c6tier, la France dispose du [lOUvoir souverain d'edicter des r!gles relatives' la peche dans sa zone economique, au nom de ee que I'on peUI appeler sa «jurisdiction to preser/In It. II est egalement incontestable que la France est en droit de poursuivre l'exfeUlion foreee de ces r!gles au moyen de decisions judiciaires en vertu de sa ""jurisdiction to adjudicate It. II n'est pas non plus douleux que, dans Ie cas priscnt, ee qui I etc rialise par les autorites frono;aises cst un acte judieiaire d'execution foreee dans I'exereiee des droits souverains que delient l'Etal rotier sur II zone economique exclusive.

Or, au moment de la ratification de 10 Convention des Nations Unies sur Ie droit de la mer, Ie GOuVemcment rran~ais a depose une declaration, eonfonnemcnt A I'article 298, paragraphe I b). de ladite Convention, d!!claration par laquelle iI faisail savoir qu'il n'aceeptaitlueune des dispositions de la Partie XV, .section 2, de la Convention au sujet, je cite: des « differcnds qui concement Its .etes d'cxecution forcee accomplis dans I'exereice de droits $Ouverains ou de lajuridiction, el que I'article 297, paragraphe 2 ou 3, exclut de la compelence d'une cour ou d'un tribunal ». II en risulte qu'en tout etat de cause, Ie Tribunal ne

"


EXPOS£: DE M. QU£:NEUDEC - .5 amIJQOI, 'pm-midi

disposerail paS, .. l'~gard de la Franee, de la comp(!tence pour connailre d'l,m tventuel difTtrend relatif .. un acle d'extculion forete.

II me reste, Monsieur Ie Pn!,idenl, .. envisager, Ie lroisieme et demier upect souleve par III. demande pn!sentte au nom du Belize et qui est constitlit par III. cireonstance qu'en I'occurrence it n'y a pas CI il ne pcut pas y avoir , proprement parler d'arraire en prompte mainlevee.

Monsieur Ie President, il me faut de 5 .. 10 minutes pour trailer de ce point. Me permetlez-vous de poUI'5uivre, en allant jusqu" la pause?

"l'he Pffsi<knt: Please do continue.

M. Qllineudec : J'en viens done' ce troisieme e! dcrnier point concemantl'inexistence d'une instance au titre de I'article 292. On ne peu! guere envisager iei I'existence d'une affaire et done d'une instance en mainlevee de I'immobilisation d'un navire paree que, 1000t simplement, la demande prescntte par Ie Belize eSI en fail depourvuc d'objel.

La requEte du Beli:!:e est depourvue d'objet, eu ~aard , I, cireonstance que Ie navire pour lequcl clle demande Ie prononct d'une mainlevec d'immobilisalion , fai l I'objet d'une mesure de confiscation dtcidee par Ie tribunal comp(!tenl , titre de peine et eu tgard au fait que cette peine a ete assortie d'une mcsure d'eXeculion immediate.

L'immobilisation du navire donI elle dcmllnde la mainlcvec n'est pa.~ en I'espece une mesure provisoire analogue au procedt de 18 saisie conservatoire, qui est relativement frequenle dans Ie droit maritime, ou I'on est porte it s'inspirer toujOUI'5 de III. maxime _ Mieux vau! lenir que courir a, droit maritime ou I'on se pn!occupe davantage de procedure au nom du fameux. adage c Rl!ml!dies pncedl! rlghlS a.

Une saisie conservatoire - en analais, arrest ou nllachment, selon Ie cas - permet de relenir un navire .. tilre de gage ou de .(irclt en attendant Ie ~glement d'un lilige. Prise avec I'autorisalion d'un juge, celte mesure provisoirc PCUI etre egalemenl levee sur autorisation de I'autoritt judiciaire competente Ie lorsqu'une caution ou une gaeanlie suffisante auronl ~Ie foumies II, pour reprcndre ici I'expression utilis~e dans I'art icle 5 de III Convention de Bruxelles de 1952 sur la saisie conservatoire des navires de mer, dontles termes onl influcnct en partie la n!daclion de I'article 292 de III. Convention sur Ie droit de la mer.

L'immobilisation ici en cause, s'agissanl du Grand Prince, est tout .. fait difftrente. Elle multe d'UIlC decision de justice qui a prononce III. confiscation du navire conceme en lanl que peine applicable, confonntmeOl aux. disposilions du droit national prevoyanl I. n!pression de delhs, eomme Ie delit de ~he illicite daM les eaux sous juridiction rran~aise. Conlrairemenl .. ce que pn!tend III. partie reqlltranle, Ie fait de prononcer III. confiscalion d'un navire de ¢Che battanl pavilion ttranger ne conSlitue en rien Ulle violation de 10 Convent ion sur Ie droit de III. mer. Celie Convention laisse chaque Elot Partie lotalement libre de dtfinir les infractions" scs lois el rtglements en moti~re de ~he. de mEme que celie Convention I.isse chaque Etat Partie libre de dttenniner les sanctions susceplibles d'etre appliqlltes aux. auteUI'5 de ces infractions, SOUl la reserve de l'article 73, patagtaphe J, bien entendu.

Le Tribunal n'ignore pas que ce type de sanction, III. confiscation, est prevu par la legislation nationale de nombreux Etau dlliers, dont les tribunaux. n'hesllenl pas , appliqucr la peine de confiscation du navire, qui est une peine paniculierement grave lorsqu'il s'agit de reprimer des delils de pkhe d'une paniculiere gravit~. 11 suffil, pour s'en convlinere, de consul ter, dans la strie The Law of/he Sea publiee par la Division des IIfTaircs maritimes el du droil de la mer du Bureau des affaire! juridiques du Secretarial des Nations Unies, Ie volume eonsaert aux I~gi slations nationales sur la zone economique exclusive.

"


• ORAND PRINCE.

Le navin: Grand Prince ayant etc confisque avec e fTet imml!diat A titre de sanction penale, il se trouve de fait immobilisl!. mais celie immobilisat ion n'a rien de comparable A I'immobilisation qui n!sulte d'une mesure de saisie autorisi!e par un juge dans Ie cadre d'une procl!dure civile ou penale engagee centre Ie proprietaire ou Ie capitaine du navin:. Alon qu'une saisie de type conservatoire a pour seul effet d'empkher Ie depart du navire et ne porte aucuoe alleinte aux droits du proprietain:, une confiscation prononcl!e par decision de justice, qui s'apparente iei, POW" conserver ce parall~le avec Ie droit mari lime, i uoe saisie elCl!cution, entraine Ie transfert IU profit de l'Etat du droil de propriele sur Ie I\Ivin:. II ,'agil de ce que les droits d'inspiration analo..-Iaxonne dl!sigoent sous Ie nom de «forfeitwn., laquelle est generalement definie, je cite : «Ion of proputy cu a penalty for some illegal act •. En pareil cas, Ie titulain: du titn: lur Ie navire n'est plus la personne physique ou morale qui en etai t proprictain: jusqu'A I'intervention de III. mesun: judiciain: de confiscation.

Dans ces condit ions, 5i I'ancien propriClain:, dont Ie navire a etc confisque par dl!c ision de justice, 50uhaite recouvrcr son titre sur Ie navire el relrouver la libre disposit ion de ce navire, il ne peut Ie fa ire qu'en contestant la n!gulari te de la decision judieiaire qui a ordonnl! 1110 confiscation. La voie nonnale consiste alors, pour lui, i recourir' une j uridicI ion superieure d'appel, en I'es!*«. la cour d'appel de Saint-Denis de In Reunion, Cet ancien proprietain: ne peut pas pritendn: 50umettre au fain: soumettre eelle question au Tribunal international du droil de la mer en se fondant sur I'a rticle 292 de II Convention. paree que e'est une question qui conceme Ie fond de l'afTaire, « The merits af tM case •• el qui est., en tanl que telle, elCclue du champ d'applicalion de l'anic1e 292, nous I'avons vu. Et d'aiUeurs, celie question ne pourrait eventucllement ftre dl!fl!rte i wle juridielion intemalionale ayant competence POW" en connaitre, qU'lprts q,uisemenl prta!able des voies de reeours internes,

D'un autre ciM, lorsque l'lncien propri l!taire. au lieu de contester clevant les tribunaulC fra~lis III. rfgularitl! ou Ie bien-fonde de la confiscation, chcrche A recuperer son titre sur Ie navire par Ie biais d'une demandc de mainlevee devanl votre Tribunal, it:sc heurte A une autre impossibilite, puisque dans Ie cadre de I'article 2921c Tribunal ne se prononce que sur une question de mainlevCc d'immobilisa tion. Dans ce cadre, Ie Tribunal pc:ut ordonncr A l'Etat cOlier de proc&ler A 1110 prom pte mainlevl!e, c'esl-a-dire que sa dl!cision pennel nonnalemenl au proprictaire de retrouver I'usage de $On navire.

Done. par sui te de la confiscation, Ie titre de propril!te :sc trouve entre les mains de l'Etat fran~is, En ordonnant la prompte mlinlevl!e, Ie Tribunll risquerait d'~tre conduit i ordonner lUX lutoritl!S judicilires fran~aises de restiluer Ie navire • son proprietain:, I!lanl donr"II! que jusqu" urn: dl!cisioo de justice eventuellement contrain:, Ie propril!taire actuel du navire est l'Etat f~ais, une dl!cision du Tribunal ordonnant la remise du navire i son proprietaire n'aurait aucun senl, Si, IU contraire, Ie Tribunal ordonnait A 10 France de procl!der A la mainlevl!e au profit de I'ancien propril!tain:, outn: Ie fait qu'i l semit ainsi amene A rtfonner im!guli~rement un jugemenl rcndu par une juridiction interne, surgirait inevitablemcnt Ie probl~me de la suite qui pourrai t elre donnl!e A I'arr~t du Tribunal.

II n'es t pas douteulC que la dl!cis ion que pourrait prendre Ie Tribunal ordonnant i la France de n:stituer Ie navire Grand Prinu A son ancien proprietain:, celte dl!cision que poUJ"T1Iit prendre Ie Tribunal serait depourvue de tout effet pratique,

En tant que juridietion intemationale, Ie Tribunal ne peut pas Ie penneltre de tenler de trancher une question qui fil\l!ement est vide de sens et que 1'00 peut qualifier du tenne anglais au arnl!ricain c mOOl ., selon la dHinition qu'en donnai t Sir Gerald Fiwnauriee dans son opinion individuelle jointe • ramI dc la Cour inlemaliol\lle de Justiee dans l'lfflire du CarMrown sepltmtrialtQ/. Une question peut ~tre ou devenir «mQOl. lorsqu'elle Ipparait comme « pointless or without abject •. Et d'ailleurs, dans cette affaire, dans $On arrtt du 2 dl!cembre 1963, III. Cour avait souHgne. je eite :

"


Expose DE M. QUENEUOEC - 5 .vriI200t,..,.u-midi

L'arret de la Cour doit II voi r des conKquences pratiques en ee sens qu';1 doit pCIuvoir affeeter Ics droits cI obligations juridiques existants des parties, dissipant ainsi toute IncertilUde dans leurs re lations juridiques.

Monsieur Ie President, on Ie voit, de quelque cOte que I'on retoume II question, on debouche constamment sur une impasse. La raison en est simple. La demande est sans objet et Ie Tribunal ne saurait done y faire droit. Et, comme louie juridiclion soucieuse de sauvegarder I'integrite de la foru::tion judieiaire, Ie Tribunal a done iei II possibilite de (aire usage de son pouvoi r inherent de constater que, dans les circonslanees de I'espke, il ne peut pas statuer sur la demande qui lui a ete presentee au nom de l'Etat du Be l i~e el qu'iI conv;enl en consequence de declarer Ie non·lieu.

Telles sont, Monsieur Ie Prtsident, Ics differentes raisons qui nous eonduisenl i!. vous demander de declarer que la requcte du Delize doh eIre eeartee.

Monsieur Ie Pn!sidenl, Messicurs Ics Juges, je souhailcrais cn Icrminant, vous remereier de vOlre aimable attention.

The President: 1·lavc you eoneluded your arguments onjurisdietion and admissibility?

M. Quir~uckc .fai termini.

Tire President: Thank you.

(To the Agent oj Belize) Arc you ready to give your reply or would you like a 15-minute break as agreed earlier?

/If,. Pene/as Alvarez: I would appreciale a short break to prepare my reply.

The P,.esident: Yes. We wi ll mcct again al 5 o'clock.

ShtJn odjournmentjrom 4.45 to 5.05 p.m.

The p,.esident: I now invite the Agent of Belize 10 make his slatement.

"


"GRANO PRtNCE~

Argument of Belize (eon1in ued)

STATEMENT or MR PENELAS ALVAREZ AGENT OF BELIZE [PV.OIf2. E, p. 19-20)

Itfr P~nelos AIl'orez: [t is eurious to see that the alleaations made by the: French representatives are pwely directed 10 justify invoking certain domestic regulations, obviously not (the French) Constitution, and also domestic proceedings, to justify a breach of anicle 73.2 of the Convention. I insist that that is not admissible.

I thought that today we were dealing only wi th the matters of jurisdiction and admissibi lity. ~Iowc:ver, I note that the representatives of France went through the merilS of the casco Therefore, I wish very briefly to me:ntion the: facts of the arrest of the: Grand Princ~.

The vessel "''as detained on 26 December 2000. On 12 January 2001. 17 days aRer the detention, the coun of first instance of Saint·Paul in La Reunion fixed t\ vuarantee for re lease of the vessel and the Captain which allo .... 'Cd only the fonn of a cheque or a payment in cash in the amount of 11 ,400,000 FF. A bank guarantee was not allowed.

On 23 January 2001, which is on1 )' one week after the notification of the order to the: Captain. neither the shipowner nor Belize was notified until France: received the present Application. 1be shipo"'ner was trying to make arrangements to try to place the bond and to avoid the: disaster of paralyzing the ship. The (criminal) coun of Saint-Denis, as France has recognized, decided effectively to confiscate the ship and to impose: a fine on the Cllptain in the IImount of 200,000 FF. The: eoun also deeided to elCecute the confiscation notwithstanding lIppc:al. The said decision has been appealed, IS you can see in the file , before the court of appeal of Saint· Denis, pending a date for a hearing.

On that basis, France actually impeded the release o f the ship. neither with a reasonable bond nor with what was in our opinion the unreasonable bond fixed b)' the fi rst instance court. As a result. the realit)' or all that is that the vessel remains detained in 1.11 Reunion. Those are the simple faclS or OUf case.

Paragraph I of article 73 states that the: I;Qastal State can arrest and elIIT)' out judicial proceedings to ensun:: I;omplianee with the laws and regulat ions adopted by it, but always in conformity with the Convention. Patajp'1lph 2 or the same article establishes an important limit with regard to the po"'Cr given to the: coastal Stlltes under paragraph I of the same ankle, that the crews and vessels must in every l;aIC be n::leased without delay IIgainst a reasonable bond. The Convention gives the same treatment to the crews and the vessels. They must not be dellli nc:d while the judicial proceedings are pendini.

Although I am consdous that the Tribunal hils II clear and superior criterion of the lIim and mellfling of "prompt re lease" under artkle 73 of the Convention, 1 wish to recall a paragraph o f the Judgment pronounced in the "Montt CQrifureQ" Cas~, when:: the Tribunal masterfully expressed the meaning of the said n::levllflt precept:

Article 73 identifies two inten::sts, the interest of the coastal State to take appropriate measures as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and n::gulations adopted b)' it on the one hand and the interest of the flag State in securing prompt release or its "essels and their crews rrom detention on the other. It strikes a fair balanec: between the two interests. It provides fOl' release of the vessel and its I;rew upon the posting or a bond or other security, thus protectina the interests of the flag State and or other

20


STAEMENT Of MR PENELAS Al..VAREZ _ S April 2001, p.m.

persons affected by the detention of the vessel and its crew. The release from detention can be subject only to a ''reasonable'' bond.

That 1.I."aS held by the Tribunal in the ··Monlc Con!urco" Cose and is absolutely clear. I wondcr whcre, in our case, is the said balance of interests between the two States?

Where is the protection of the shipowner, the nag State, the creditors of the ship, the workers, the ship agents or other people with an interest in the ship? Where is that protection? If we follow the theory of France, every State could perfectly avoid the requirement of prompt release of vessels and crews. That is easy: you modify your domestic law, like France, to contemplate confiscation of ships, vessels, imprisonment o f crews, execution notwithstanding appeal and a speedy proceeding. The proceedings can take place even afte r arrival of the ship at port. That is very easy. You can have a decision very quickly and then argue that as long as the decision is executed notwithstanding appeal, you do nOt have to release the ship.

It does not matter if, after an appeal based on law, it is decided that the decision was not correct. The crew can be taken out of prison and the vessel, if it still exists, can be returned to the shipowncr. That is simple. That way one can avoid the requirements of prompt release under article 73.2 of the Convention.

France is try ing to introduce a new concept in international law; a new concept in the Convention. I shall call it "prompt confiscation and prompt imprisonment". That concept would prevail over prompt release. If the Tribunal accepted such a position, anicle 73.2 would become in practice "dead letters", wet paper. It would be an open door for all kinds of subterfuge and strategies to evade compliance with the Convention.

Therefore, it is clear - I reproduce here the arguments of the Application - that the Tribunal has a clear jurisdiction in th is case and that the Applica tion is admissible.

Thank you very much, Mr President, and honourable Judges, for your kind attention.

Thc President: I presume that you have concluded your arguments on jurisdiction?

Afr Penefas AI,·o,.e:: That is correct, Mr President.

The p,.esidenl: Thank you.

Would the Agent of France like to make a funber statement?

"


PI.ldoirie de I. FNl nee (, ,,.lle)

EXPOSE DE M. ALABRUNE AGENT DE BELIZE IPV.O If2,F,p. 17J

M. Alabrune :

~ GRAND PRINCE»

Monsieur Ie Prtsiden!, Messieurs les Juges, nous arrivons au te rme de I'audience que votte Tribunal a bien voulu consacrcr A la question prealable soulevl!e par la France el re lative A la recevabili tl! de la demande elAla eompl!tenee du Tribunal pour connaitrc de celie demande ~sentl!e au nom du Belize.

Au cours de ccttc: audience, la Franee a expose ses arguments sur eetle qucslion et. eontrairemenl A ee que vient d'affirmer I'autre partie, elle est restee AI'inll!rieur de la question de 10 recevabilill! et de la comJ)l!tenee et n'en a pas dc!bordl!.

A l'issue de c::c::lte discussion au coun de laquelle les deux parties se son! exprimees, je souhaite deposer, sur c::eUe question prtalable de la rccevabilill! et de la c::ompl!tence, les conelusioM du Gouvemement de la Republique ~ise, qui sc lisent c::omme suit, et je dte;

Le Gouvemement de la Republique fran~aise prie Ie Tribunal, rejetllnt lOUIe c::onelusion c::ontraire prl!scntl!e au nom de I'Eta! du Belize, de c::onstaler que la demande de mainlevl!e deposl!e Ie 21 mars 2001 au nom du Octize est irrec::evable, et, qu'en lout I!tat de c::ausc, Ie Tribunal n'a pas comJ)l!tcnce pour en eonnailre et que celie demandc doil, des lon, etre c!cartl!e.

Je rcmel$ au g.refTe. sur cette question prtalable, les conclusions du Gouvernemm\ de 10 Republique fran~aise et j'ajoute evidemment, Monsieur Ie Prtsident, que ees conclusions ne ponenl que sur la question prtliminaire el que, bien entendu, la France deposera demain des c::onclusions finales Al'issue des dl!bats du Tribwlal.

Je vous remere ie, MOMieur Ie Prtsident.

The Preside,.,,: Thank you.

llle meeting is now adjourned. We will mcctagain at 10.00 a.m. tomorrow.

Adjournment at 5.20 p.m.


STATEMENT OF Mil. PIlNELAS ALVAREZ - 6 AprillOOI, •. m.

l'UOLle SITTING HE Ll) ON 6 AI'RIL 2001, 10.00 A.M.

Tribunal

Pnsenl: President CHANDRASEKHARA RAO; Ylu-Pruldent NELSON; Judgu CAM INOS, MAROTIA RANGEL, YANKOV, YAMAMOTO, KOLODKfN, PARK, MENSAH, DAMELA ENGO, AKL. ANDERSON, VUKAS, WOLFRUM, LAING, TREVES, MARS IT, EIRIKSSON, NOlA YEo JESUS; Judge ad hoc COT; Regis/rar CHllTY.

"-or Dcli.;te: (See sitting of5 April 2001 , 3.00 p.m.)

.'or .-ra nee: [See sitting of 5 April 2001, 3.00 p.m.)

AU ' ) IENCE PUBLIQUE DU 6 AVRIL 1001, 10 II 00

Tribunal

Prlsents .. M. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO, Prisidenl; M. NELSON, Yiu-Prisit!ent; MM. CAMfNOS, MAROTIA RANGEL, YANKOV, YAMAMOTO, KOLODKIN, PARK, MENSAH, BAMELA ENGO, AKL. ANDERSON, VUKAS, WOLFRUM, LAING, TREVES, MARS IT, EiRIKSSON, NOlA YEo JESUS,jugu; M. COT,juge ad hoc:; M. CHITIY. Greffier.

Pour JJcl i.u: : (Voir "alldienee dll 5 IlvriI200I, 15 h 00]

I'our hI. .' noce: [Voir I'audience du 5 Ilvril 2001, 1!5 h 001

The Pnsident: I now invite the Agenl for the ApplicanllO make his statemenl.

"


"GRAND PR[NCE~

Argument of Uelize (contioued)

STATEMENT OF MR PENELAS ALVAREZ AGENT OF BELIZE (PV.OIl3, E, p. 4-8]

Mr Peneias Ah-arez: Mr President, honourable Judges, I shall today deal with the merits of the present case, slarting with a brier introduction of the facts. The Grand Prince was carrying out a fishing campaign in the international waters in the so called "Williams Bank" outside the exclusive economic zone of the Kerguelens and outside the CCAMLAR area. After that campaign, the vessel was going to proceed to Brazil where it was allocated a fishing licence through a joint venture with a company from Brazil.

This is a case where, by an unfortunate decision of its Captain working for the first time on board, the fishing vessel entered the exclusive economic zone of the Kerguelens with, according to the Captain, the intention of fishing. It had no time to fish because it was caught on the same day it entered the zone. The vessel has never before been involved in illegal fishing and the Captain had clcar instructions from the shipowner not to fish outside the allowed waters. When it was caught, the vessel had on board 18 tonnes of toothfish and 200 kilos ofiobster.

On 26 December 2000 the vessel was detained by a French frigate and was taken to Port-des-Galets in La Rt:union, where it arrived on 9 January 2001. On 12 January 2001 the court of first instance of Saint-Paul issued I1n order fixing a bond for release. The bond consisted of a payment by cheque or in cash, which is practically the same, in the amount of 11,400,000 French fmncs, which exceeds three times the value of the ship and is close to the price of a new modem vessel.

The order was notified to the Captain of the vessel on 15 January 2001. On the following days, myself, together with the shipowner's lawyer in La Rt:union, Alain Antoine. had several contacts with the Director of the Direction of Maritime Affairs in La Rt:union, Eric de Chavanes, and also with Vicent Esclapez, a person ""orking in his department. We informed them that the shipowner was making all the financial arrangements to try to place a bank guarantee in the amount required by the court in order to avoid the unforeseeable loss caused by the detention of the ship.

We also infonned them that it was our intention to discuss its reasonableness, independently of placing the bond, before this international Tribunal. The reason for saying that was that we felt that the amount of the bond and also the rorm was exorbitant compared to the possible fines which could be imposed on the Captain. In the light of these conversations, the crew orthe vessel remained on board pending the release of the ship.

As you will understand, Mr President, a bond in such an amount, 11,400,000 French francs, cannot be obtained within a few days, especially when we an: speaking of a small company which owns only the Grand Prince. That answcrs question number 5 posed by the Tribunal to Beli:r..e.

On 23 January 2001, only one week after the notification of the order fixing the amount of the bond to the Captain, the {criminal] court or Saint-Denis he ld a hearing and after one hour decided to confiscate the ship I1nd to impose a fine on the Captain in the amount of 200,000 French francs. As we already know, the court also decided to execute the confiscation notwithstanding appeal. As a consequence, we were informed that the vessel could not be released, neither by posting the bond required by the first instance court nor with any other kind of bond. It was not possible to release the vessel. That was five or six days after the day the bond was fixed.

"


STATEMENT OF Mil. PENELAS AJ...VAREZ - 6 April 200 1, a. m.

Yesterday it was mentioned that that decision has been appealed. The date for the appeal is perxling. I should clari fy that the appeal relates only to the merits of the case. We understand that the sanction of confisc::ation is absolutely disproportionate to the offenee, as is shown by the low amount o f the fine imposed upon the Captain. We are confident that the court of appeal will revoke the decision of confiscation. Obviously, Mr President, prompt release is not the objective or the subject matter of the appeal. Nothing rests on the decision in this respoct. That answers the second question posed by the Tribunal to both parties.

The shipowner's lawyer in La R~union and myself held a meeting on 24 January 2001 with the Maritime Director, Erie de Chavanes, where we again explained that the vessel could not be detained and that it should be re leased upon a reasonable guarantee. We further explained that the detention of the vessel was causing grave and unforeseeable damages including the loss of the fi shing licence in Brazil. We also pointed out that if the vessel was not released, we would bring the matter before this Tribunal.

In order to solve matters in a nonnal way, we tried to convince the authorities in La Rl!union of the need for the release of the vessel. We hoped that they would reconsider the position. At their request, we sent them infonnation justifying the consequences of the vessel being detained. As evidence o f that context, I enelosed document number 14 of our Application, a fax sent by me to Erie de Chavanes giving details of the fishing lieence in Brazil and especially infonning him o f the deadline to take the lice nee. That was on 7 February 2001. We had many other eontaets by phone. That answers question number 7 posed by the Tribunal to Belize. After several contacts and disc::ussions with the authorities in La Reunion it was finally decided not to release the vessel. That is the way in which France impeded the release of the vessel.

In order to have some kind of evidenee of proof of that situation we filed a request before the court of first instanee o f SainI-Paul asking for the release of the ship against a bank guarantee in the amount fixcd by the same court. The request was rejected on 22 February on the basis that the [criminal] court had confiscated the vessel and executed the confiscation notwithstanding appeal. We enclose a eopy of the request and the order of the court as documents IS and 16 of our Application.

Under those circumstances, the shipowner explained the case to Belize and after a careful study o f the mailer it was decided 10 bring it before this international court. They are the reasons why we commenced preparation of the case and completed documentation at the beginning of March. We infonned this Tribunal on 6 Mareh 2001 of our intention to subm it this matter to the Tribunal. That answers question number 6 posed to this party.

Our Application is based on two different matters. The firsl re lates to the way in which France avoided the release of GralJ(l Prina: by posting any kind or guarantee, reasonable or not reasonable. The second matter, which is independent of the first, relates 10 whether the order fixed ini tially by the first instance court o f Saint-Paul, document number 13 of the Applieation, can be considered reasonable as to its form , nature and amount in the light or article 73 of the Convention and the case law of this Tribunal . I shall deal with each question separately.

As regards the first question, I shall not tire the Tribunal by repeating the arguments r stated yesterday. I shall only remind the Tribunal of t .... ,o facts, which are not under disc::ussion. On 12 January 2001 the Court of First Instance of Saint· Paul fixed a guarantee for release of the vessel and the Captain against a borxl in the fonn of a cheque or cash, which is the same, and in the amount of I 1,400,000 French francs. That was notified to the Captain on I S January 2001. Only one week after the noti fication to the Captain, on 23 January 2001, the [criminal] court of Saint-Denis decided, within one hour, to confiscate the vessel and execute the eonfisc::ation notwithstanding appeal, stating that there was no possibility of releasing the vessel. Those are the clear fac t5 of the case.


'"(;RAND PRINCE"

Perhaps I may put some questions to the Tribunal. Is it reasonable that a bond consisting of a payment in cash should be of an amount exceeding three times the value of the ship? Is it reasonable that such a bond can be obtained and posted in La R~union in a few days or only one week, especially in the case of a small company? 15 it not a breach of article 13.2 of the Convention to avoid release against the posting of a reasonable bond by carrying out what I called yesterday "a prompt confiscation proceeding''? I think that the response to those questions is clearly "no".

I have already stated that the provisions of the Convention regarding prompt release are independent of and prevail over domestic laws and regulations and that as a consequence, a state cannot allege a domestic precept or law to justify a breach of the requirement for promp( release sanctioned by article 73.2 of the Convention.

For all those reasons, Mr President, and Members of the Tribunal, the fonnula used by France to evade prompt release of Grand Prince is unacceptable, extremely grave and constitutes a flagrant breach o f the Convention.

I shall now refer to the second question: that is, whether or not the bond initially fixed by France was reasonable. As to the form and nature of the bond, I feel that it is unnecessary to go over again the arguments stated in our Applicat ion. I shall just mention that the Tribunal has made clear in previous casts that a bond consisting of a bank cheque or payment in cash is not a reasonable bond and that a bank guarantee or letter of credit must be allowed.

As to the amount, in the previous cases - "SAJGA ", "Camouco" and "Monte COlifurtO " - the Tribunal specified a number of relevant factors to be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of the bonds, which include the gravity of the alleged offences, the penalties imposed, or imposable, under the laws of the detaining State - and I repeat imposed, because that is our case - the value of the detained vessel and the cargo seized, and the quantity offish carried on board.

Belize, as a State Party to the Convention, wishes France to have a reasonable and sufficient guarantee to make effective a possible conviction in a final and firm judgment in the French courts. This is the aim of article 73, which is balanced by the request of prompt release.

Mr President,let us contemplate the worst scenario for the shipowner. Let us see what is the value: of the Grand Prince , a ship of 36 years of age, bought two years ago for a price of 45 million pesetas, 271,000 euro, which was originally built as a stem trawler and then convened to a bollom liner, without at the moment any stable fishing possibilities.

With your permission, Mr President, I would like the Tribunal to hear the evidcnee of our experts, commencing with Faustino Can:eller, a prominent naval engineer and marine surveyor with very great experience in the fi shing vessels market. The Tribunal or the French delegation may also wish to ask him questions about the vessel.

Can I call the witness, Mr President?

The Registrar: Mr President, before the expert is ealted upon to make the solemn declaration, I colt upon the interpreters provided by Belize to interpret the testimony of the experts from Spanish into the official languages of the Tribunal to make the solemn declaration under article 85 of the Rules of the Tribunal. I wi ll now call upon Ms Kathryn Sma" to make the solemn declaration.

Imerpreler sworn in (in English)

The Regis/rar: Thank you.

26


STATEMENT OF MR PENELAS ALVAREZ - 6 April 200 1, • . m.

I now call upon Mr Jul io Quijano to make the solemn declaration.

Interpreter sworn in (in English)

The RegiSfrar: Thank you.

The interpreters wilt now take their positions in the interpretation booths. We shall need to wait until they have taken their plaees in the booths before we ean proceed with the sotemn dedaration of the first expert ealled by Belize. An expert is required to make Ihe solemn declaration under article 79 of tile Rules of the Tribunal before making any statement before the Tribunal.

I have just received the signal that the interpreters have taken their place and that we can proceed.

I call upon Mr Antonio Alonso Perez to make Ihe solemn declaration.

Mr Penelas Al",are:z: Excuse me. This wi tness is not Antonio Alonso I)erez. He is Faustino Careeller.

The Registrar: [n that event, Mr President, I call upon Mr Faustino Careeller Vililita to make the solemn declaration. Perhaps the expert may give his name and then proceed to take the oath.

Mr Penelas A{\JQre:: I will ask him his name. Mr Carceller, could you kindly introduce yourself to the eourt?

The President: Let him give his name and make the declaration.

Mr Faustino Carceller Vilalwsworn in (in Spanish)


"GRAND PRINCE"

Eumina tion of expf!rts

EXAMINATION O F MR CARCELLER VILA LTA BY MR PENELAS ALVAREZ (BELIZE) rpV.OII3, E, p. 8-10)

}.Ir P~I'/eI(1S Ah'Or~::

Mr CarcelJer, would you kindly introduce yourself to the court?

Mr Cart:t!lIu 11/10110 (Inltrprt!tatlon/rom Spanish): I am a naval engineer; J have a doctorate; I am also a marine surveyor. My professional experience consists o f 22 years as a naval engineer working in the docks, where I worked in eonstruction, the technical department, and for the last 10 yean in a management posi tion in the docks. Since 1988 I have run my own business, working on projects and valuations of vessels of all kinds. especially fishing vessels. During my career al lhe docks I ,,'orked on budgets for Ihe construction of new vessels. I checked and reviewed budgets drawn up by others when I was in a manaaemenl posilion, and I had the opportunity 10 compare the difTerenl finance plans for vessels built.

I have also worked as an independent consultant, in which I have done valualions for the Spanish Federation of Building Societies, which is a property valuation eompany in Spain. lbat company then decided to set up a new eompany partieularly devoted to valuations. I fonn part of that company and I run and manage the valuation of vessels. During that time we have done hundreds of valuations of vessels. partieularly fishing vessels. I belong to the following associations: the Association of Naval Engineers of Spain, the Society of Naval Arehiteets and Engineers of the United States of America, and the Spanish Association of Shipping Arbitration.

Mr Pelltlas A/varez: Mr Careeller, do you ratify the full content and conclusions of yow valuat ion report of Gr(llW Prillct dated 16 Mareh 2001?

AIr Carceller /lila/la (1IIItrpr~/a'ion/rom Spanish): Yes,ofcourse.

Mr Penelas Alw,,·u.' Do you have any kind of link with the panies in this case, or any interest in the same?

Mr Carctlfer IIi/alta (1lIterpl'f!ltIllon/rom Spanish): No, none at all.

Mr Pent/cIS Alvarez: Do you have an habi litation to act in fronl of Spanish courts?

/.Ir Corctller Vi/alia (Inl~rpre/ationfrom Spanish): I have my qualifications as a naval engineer and doctor of naval engineering, and also my qualification as a marine surveyor. These enable me to speak before the Spanish courts al any level to report on matters relating to my technical competence. In fael, I have spoken before the Spanish courts in many cases relaled to shipping matters and fishing vesscls.

"


EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS - (i ApriI200I , •. m.

Mr Peneltls Alvarez: Have you ever acted as an arbiter in maritime cases?

/lfr Carceller Vi/alta (Interpretation/rom Spanish): Yes. I .... "as a sole arbiter and I was a member of a panel under the Spanish lru;t itute of Marine Arbitration.

/lfr Pene/as Alvarez: What is your experience of vessels of the characteristics o f Graml Prince?

Mr Carceller Vilalla (Inlerprelatlon/rom Spanish): Since I have had my own business and have been a consultant, I have worked on conversion projects for shipbuilders for a number of different vessels similar to the Grand Prince.

Mr Pene/as A/varez: Do you have experience in the marketing of fishing vessels sueh as the Graml Prince, and, if so, what is your experience?

Mr Carceller Vilalta (lnlerprelotionjrom Spalllsh): My expericnce is restricted to valuations for a number of shipowners in an advisory capacity. I have not been involved directly in buying and selling as a main pany, but as an adviser to those buying alld selling.

Mr Pene/os Alvarez: What are the main premises to be taken into account whcn evaluating the price of a vessel?

Mr Corceller Vilollo (Inlerpretolion/rom Spanish): The age of the vessel, the state of maintenance, any modernization or repai rs that have been carried out on the vessel, fishing licences, if ally. in the case of a fishing vessel, the adaptation for the type of fishing concerned, and, of course, the demand for the type of vessel concerned.

Mr Pene/as Ah'are:: Has the age of a vessel a relevant influence on its value?

Mr Corceller lIilollO (1IIIerprelation/rOIll Spanish): Yes. I would say that it is perhaps the most important factOr, nOt just because age itselfhas an impact on the state of the boat, but beeause of the possible obsolescence of the vessel and its equipment.

Mr Penelos Alvarez: What would be your opinion of the market price o f Grand Prince at the present moment?

Mr Carcelfer Vilolta (Interpretation/rom Spanish): As I said in my valuat ion, the market price is about 360,000 curo.

Mr Pene/as Al~'Orez:

How do you arrive at that price?

"


"GRAND PRINCE"'

Mr Corceller Vi/alto (Interpretation/rom Spanish): There are two main procedures of approximation, based on the COSI price of a similar vessel newly-buill and the price depreciating in time, and comparing thai current dcpreciated value with the market value now for similar vessels. That is how I arrived at the estimated construction price of2.585 million eum. I arrived at the conclusion that thc current value, as I said before, would be 360,000 euto. , would say that it would be difficult to obtain such a price on the market today. because then: is more supply than demand, but I think that would still be a reasonable price.

Mr Penelas Alvarez: In your opinion, what is the natural destiny, in a short teon period, of a vessel of the characteristics and age o f Grand Prince?

Mr Carceller Vilalta (Inrerpretalion/rom Spanish): The Grand Prince is 35 years old, so I think that its only value is for serap.

Mr Penefas Alvarez; The maritime authorities in La Rc!union valued this ship at 13,000,000 French francs, or [1 ,98 1,837] euro. Do you find that to be an accurate value?

Mr Carcelfer Vi/alia (Interpretalianfrom Spanish): It seems completely illogical and unreasonable. [t is impossible to achieve this price because a 35-year-old vessel has an old hull. Even though there may have been considerable modernizations and some of the hull might have been repaired, it is st ill o ld, and othcr parts o f the boat are old, too. Also, the quality of the matcrials used is not as good as today. The engines an: old. So I do not think that this price is logical at all . It is not the price of the vessel. I think that it would be impossible to achieve that priee in any purchase agrecment. For any buyer of a vessel through a shipbuilder, it is unthinkable that there could be any agreement based on that price.

Mr Penelas Alvarez: The final question is: Could you please infoon the Tribunal of the approximate cost of a ne:wly-built vessel similar to Grand Prince?

Mr Corcelfer Vi/alia (InterpretQtion/rom Spanish): My estimate, as I have said in my evaluation, is 2,585,000 eun). Of course that depends on the specification butlhat is my estimate for a ncwly-built vessel similar to the Grand Prince.

Mr Pene/as Alvarez: Mr President. I have no further questions for this expert. I will ask you now to hear our second expen, the marine surveyor Mr Antonio Alonso Perez.

The Presldenl: Let me ask France whether they wish to cross-examine.

(To the Agent o/Fronce) The expert is now available to you, you may wish 10 crossexamine:.


AUDITION DES EXPERTS _ 6 avril 2001, malin

CONTRE-INTERROGA TOIRE DE M. CARCELLER VILAL T A PAR M. QUENEUDEC (FRANCE) [rV.OIf), F, p. 7, E, p. 10]

Ai. Qllineudee : Monsieur Ie Prtsidcnt, j'aurais deux questions !I. poser !I. M. Carceller en tant qu'expert ci t~ par la partie adverse.

Premiere question: Monsieur Carceller, vous ayez ~tabli un rapport d'~valuat ion du Grand Prince Ie 16 mars 2001. Pourriez-vous dire au Tribunal a la demande de qui vous avez proeMe a celte ~yalualion 1

Mr Carcefler Vitollo (Interpretation/rom Spanish): lbe lawyer of the shipowner, Mr Alberto Penelas.

M. QUI!neudec : Vous I'avez fai l sur la base d'un dossier qui vous a ete soumis. A partir de ce dossier, pourriez-vous indiquer au Tribunal quelle ~tait Ii. la date a laqueUe YOUS avez proeede ;\ I'i!valuation Ie nom du proprietain: veritable du navire ?

Mr Coreeffer Vi/alw (Interpretation/rom Spanish): I was not given any report asking me 10 do the valualion. Mr Penelas asked me to provide a valuation, I know this boat because the shipyard carrying out the conversion of this vessel asked me to do a project for it in connection wi th the shipyard where I was asked to do it. I do not know the shipowner, I have no knowledge whatsoever of who the shipowner is.

M. QI/ineudee : Merei, Monsieur Ie Pr~sident.

The Prerident: Thank you very much.

(To the Agent 0/ Belize) You can proceed with your next expert.

Mr An/onio Alonso Perez sworn in (in Spanish)

Jl


~ORAND PR!NCE~

EXAMINATION OF MR ALONSO PEREZ BY MR PENELAS ALVAREZ (BELIZE) [PV.OI /J, E, p. 10--12]

Mr Penelas Alvarez: Mr Alonso, would you kindly introduce yoursclfto the court?

Mr Alonso Perez (Interpretation/rom Sponlsh): My name is Antonio Alonso Perez. I am a captain in the Spanish merchant navy. I am also a marine surveyor. I am an inspector for the certification of vessels for the provision of flags and certification for the vessels of HondUI1l!l and Costa Rica. [ am also the chief of security of the Port of Vi go in Spain.

Mr Pene/as Alvarez: Do you ratify the full content and conclusions of your evaluation report on Grand Prince dated]J March 2001?

Mr Alonso Perez (Interpretalionjrom SiJOnish): V".

Mr Pcnefas Alvarez: Do you have any kind of link with the parties in this case or any interest in the same?

Mr Alonso Perez (ImerpreWtionjram Sponish): No.

Mr Penelos Alvarez: Do you have the habilitation to act before the Spanish courts?

Mr Alonso Perez (Interpretation/rom Spanish): As a captain of the merchant navy and as a marine surveyor, yes, I am entitled 10 do so. In fact, I have already acted as expert in a number o f cases for the evaluation of vessels, equipment and hulls and in marine surveying mailers.

Mr Pellelas Alvarez: Do you have experience in the marketing of fishing vessels like Grand Prince and, if so, how have you gained that experience?

Mr Alonso Perez (Interpretation/rom Spanish): I have taken part in fishing vessel inspections, either trawlers, longliners or bottom liners, and also in buying and selling and insurance for P&I purposes and work carried out to European standards on fishing vessels.

Mr Penelas Alvarez: What are the main provisos to be taken into account when evaluating a vessel?

Mr Alonso Perez (Interpretation/rom Spanish): One of the main factors is the age of the vessel; then of course the state of repair and whether then:: have been major modifications; the des ign in relation to the type of fishing or purpose of the vessel; and another important factor is whether the vessel has a fishing licence and for

"


EXAM[NATION OF EXPERTS - 6 Apri[ 200[. a.m.

what waters - and that might be NAFO or other waters - and the current state of the market for the purchase and sale o f such vessels.

Afr Penelas Alvarez: In your opinion, a big influence in the value of a ship is its age?

Afr Alonso Perez (Interpretallon/ronl S/X'n;sh): Yes, that has a great deal of influence because of the ", .. ear and teat that is caused by fishing. There might be damage to the hull; there might be problems with the steering or the engines. There is wear and tear on all these things. Then there is the type of sleel, whether it is high in carbon, which is tougher for the purposes of using in very cold waters or in icc.

Mr Penelo$ Almnz: In your opinion. what would the market price for Grand Prince be at the present moment?

Mr A/onso Perez (Interpretat ion/rom Spanish): According to my calculations, it would be somewhere beN.reen 58 million and 62 million pesetas. In francs, that is just over one million.

Mr PenelclS A/varez: How did you arrive at the descript ion in your report?

Mr Alonso Perez (Interpretationfi'om Spanish): Well, there are a number o f ways of carrying out an evaluation. Age and condi tion are important factors. The evaluation has to be based on the residual value of the boat and that is, of course, after 36 years of use in this case, but there was a recent sale at 45 million pesetas and that is a factor to be taken into account. There is more modern equipment for steering thaI has been incorporated into this boat and that is why the figure is a bit higher than that.

Mr Pene/(IS Alvarez: In your opinion, what is the value in a short·tenn period based on the characteristics of the Graml Prince?

Mr Alonso Perez (lnterpretatianfi'om Spanish): Given the age of the vessel and the type of converted fishing vessel that it is, I think it is just scrap value only.

Mr Penelas Alvarez: Finally, I infonn you that the maritime authorities in Reunion valued the Grand Prince at 3 million French francs. Do you find that an accurate value?

Mr Alonso Perez (Interpretation/rom Spanish): Could you n:peatthe amount?

Mr Pelle/as Alvarez: "Three million French francs, 1,730 curo.

Mr Alonso Puez (Interpretalionfi'om Spanish): Thllt is not correct.

J3


'"ORAND PRINCE'"

Mr Penelas Alvarez: Three million French francs, 1,737,000 euro.

Mr Alonso Perez (Interpretalionjrom Spanish): That is about 300 million pesetas. Well, you could buy a new vessel with that amount. As I said to you, if you took a new vessel of this design that was only to be used for bottom-line fishing, it would be about 400 million pesetas, $0 I think the estimate given is extremely high, it is exaggerated or they have valued the wrong type of vessel.

Mr Penelas Alvarez: Thank you. I have 00 further questions for you.

The President: Would France like to cross-examine this expert?


INTERVENTION BY JUDGE EIRIKSSON - 6 AprillOOI , a.m.

INTERVENTION BY JUDGE EIRIKSSON [PV.OI/3, E, p. 121

Judge Eiriksson: Could we have some clarification on the exchange rates here? The figures you gave do not accord with what you were saying before.

Mr Pene/as A/Mrez: Yes. The maritime authorities in Rtunion valued the vessel at 3 million French francs. lei me check. I am sorry, that is 13 million French francs. That is the correct figure.

The President: Would you like to put that qucstion to the expert?

AIr Pene/as A/Mrez: I correct the evaluation by the French authorities. The price of this vessel was 13 million French francs. Do you find thai an accurate value?

Mr Alonso Perez (fnterpretalionjrom Spanish): No. Once again, I quickly calculated in my head into pe5Clas from the figure in euro, so I knew that it would be in the region of 300 million pesetas.

Mr Pene/as AIV(Jrez: The figure in euro was correct and he understood the figure.

Thank you very much, Mr Alonso.

The President: (To the Agent of Frallce) You have the expert now for cross-examination.

"


«GRAND PRINCE .

CONTRE-INTERROGATOIRE DE M. ALONSO PEREZ PAR M. QUENEUDEC (FRANCE) [PV.O II3, F, p. 10, E, p. 12]

M. Quinelldec : Capitaine Alonso, vous serai t-il possible de repondre Ii. la question que j 'a i dejA posee 1I l'cxpert precedent. Lorsque vous avez proeMe II I'evaluation de la valeur du Grand Prince, avez-vous elf en mesure de eonnailre l'identite du proprietaire actuel de ce navire ?

Mr AIQIISO Perez (InlerpretaliQn/rom Spanish): I am not sure I understood the question correct ly.

The President: Please repent the question.

M. Quimmdec : Pouvez-vous nous dire si, au moment de I'etablissement du rapport de votre evaluation du Grand Prince, vous avez connu Ie nom du proprietaire actuel de ce navire?

AIr Alonso Perez (Interpretation/rQm Spanish): There is a name of a company here. Paik is the name o flhe company that I have.

M. Qllinelldec : Merci, Monsieur Ie President.

The President: Thank you very much.

1llc Agent for Belize may now continue his statement.

"


STATEMENT 01' MR PENELAS ALVAREZ - 6 ApriI200I,Lm.

Argument of Beli:te (continued)

STATEMENT OF MR PENELAS ALVAREZ AGENT OF BELIZE [PV.O II3, E, p. 12-14}

Mr Pene/us Alvarez: Mr President, Members of the Tribunal, you have heard the authorized testimony of two prominenl persons in the fishing field. According 10 them, the value of Grand Prince is in the region of 360,000 euro in the best of cases. They have already evidenced thai the price estimated by the French surveyor, Mr Chancerel, on behalf of the maritime authorities in La R<!union is totally unrealistic, reaching a figure which is close to the price of a new, modem vessel of similar characteristics of Grand Prince but built originally as a longliner and fitted with the most sophisticated equipment.

I am not awaTC of tile experience ofMr Chaneerel with those kinds of vessels. I know that there are not many in La R<!union. When making his appraisal, Mr Chancercl did not consider Ihe purchase price of the ship, 45 million pesetas; its fishing possibilitics, which is a very imponant clement; the fact thai it is an cxtremely old ship; the matter of ils conversion from a trawler into a longliner, and so forth. In my opinion, with all respect to Mr Chanccrel, he did not make a vcry extensive study of this particular vessel.

Now we have an accuratc idea of the value of Grund Prince; that is, 360,000 euTO. Other ci rcumslanccs should also be taken into consideration whcn assessing the reasonableness of the bond: the small quantity of fish carried on board, ] 8 tonnes of toothfish; thai Ihe Caplain had clear instructions from Ihe shipowner not to fish in the said area; that the vessel was about to proceed to Brazil where she had good possibilitics of fishing under a Brazil fishing licence; the full cooperation of the Captain, the crew and shipowner of Grand Prince with the French authoritics; and finally the amount of thc fine imposed by the [criminal) court of Saint-Denis to the Captain which, although it has been appealed, is in the amount of200,000 French francs.

Finally, we must recall that, as stated by this Tribunal in paragraph 86 of the Judgment pronounced in the "Monte Confurco" Case, the value of the fish and the fishing gear seized is also to be taken into account as a relevant faclor in the assessment of thc reasonableness of Ihe bond. Following the valuat ion made by the French authori ties, the amount of these ilcms is 153,000 curo, which should be considered as part of the guarantee.

The result is that even contemplating the worst scenario for the shipowner, the final and firm d.,;:ision of a domestic court, the court of appeal or the Supreme Court in Paris, would be full y guaranteed by a bank guarantee in the amount 0[206,000 euro.

For aU those reasons, Mr President, I reproduce in full the submissions stated in our Application. I thank you for your kind and patient allention.

The PreslJellt: Uave you concluded your statement?

Mr Pene/as Alvarez: Yes.

The Presidellt: Would France be able to present its statement at 11.30 or 12 o'clock?

J7


"ORAND PRINCEH

AI. Alab,.,me : Monsieur Ie Pn';sident, si vOIlS pcnnettez, nous souhaiterions intervenir !\ I'heure pr<!vue initialement, c'est·t.-dire 14 heures.

The Presidellt; Thank you very much.

The hcaring is adjourned until two o'clock.

Adjournment at J J a.m.

38


STATEMENT OF MR At.ABRUNE - 6 April 200 1, p.m.

I'VULle SI'TTING II ELD O N 6 AI'RIL 2001 , 2.40 P.M.

Tribuul

Pr~s~nt: Presid~nt CHANORASEKHARA RAO; Vice-Pr~slde"t NELSON; Judges CAMINOS, MAROTfA RANGEL, YANKOV, YAMAMOTO, KOLODKIN, PARK, MENSAH, BAMELA ENOO, AKL, ANDERSON, VVKAS, WOLFRUM, LAING, mEVES. MARSIT, EIRIKSSON, NOlA YE, JESUS; Judge ad hoc COT; R~glstr"r CHITfY .

• 'or Ucllu: (Sec sitting of 5 April 2001, 3.00 p.m.)

For France: [See sit ting of 5 April 2001, ].00 p.m.]

AUDI ENC E PUBLIQUE DU 6 AVRIL 2001 , 14 11 40

T ribuna l

Presents : M. CHANORASEKHARi\ RAO, Presidenr, M. NELSON, Vice_Prbident; MM. CAMINOS, MAROTIA RANGEL, YANKOV, YAMAMOTO, KOLODKIN, PARK, MENSAH, BAMELA ENOO, AKL. ANDERSON, VUKAS, WOLFRUM, LA ING, TREVES, MARSIT, EIRIKSSON, NOlA YE, JESUS,juges; M. COT,juge ad hoc; M. CHITIY, GreiJIer.

Pour IJcli7.t: (Voir I'audience dll 5 avri l 2001, 15 h 00]

I'our la ."ra nee: [Voir I'audienee du 5 avril 2001, 15 h 00]

TM Prtsithnt: I now invite the Agent of France to make his statement.

19


Plaidoirie de la Fra nce (suile)

EXPOSE DE M. ALABRUNE AGENT DE BELIZE (PV.OIf4, F, p. I)

M. A!ob,.,me :

• GRAND PRINCE.

Monsieur Ie President, Messieurs les Juges, avant de commencer celie d4!clamtion, je souhsitcrais appcler votre allcntion sur des documents que II partie fran~aise a transmis au Tribunal. II s'agit d'une note verbale du MininUe des afTaires ttrang~n:s du Belize: datfe du 4 janvier, il ,'agit deuxitmement d'une leure venant de I'organisme IMMARBE, datfe du 26 mars demier. II s'asit enlin d'un procts-verbal d'audition de personnes gardees • vue qui vou, a eu! transmis et qui date du 10 janvier 2001.

The President: We do not have a copy of that.

M Alobrllne : Je pense que ce <kx:ument vous a ete transmis.

'The Preslden,: Yes. BUI that is not II new document.

M Alobrutre : C'es' un document que: nous avons transmis aujourd'hui llfin que VOllS I'ayez e! que vous disposiez d'une copie en propre.

The Presldenl: I now give the noor to the Agent o f the Applicant to indicatc whether he has any objection to the submission of these documcnts by France.

"


STATEMENT OF Mil. PENELAS ALVAREZ -" April 2oot, p.m.

Argumen t of Belize (continued)

STATEMENT OF MR PENELAS ALVAREZ AGENT OF BELIZE [PV.01/4, E, p. 4J

Mr Pelle/os Alvarez: No, Mr President. However, I would like to make a brief comment on these documents.

The President: You are given the opportunity to do so now. I give the floor to the Agent of the Applicant to offer his comments on these documents.

Mr Penelas Ah'arez: Me President, Members of the Tribunal, I have 00 objection to these documents. However, I should like to make rererence to a letter rrom IMMARBE or Beliu, which issued the two letters that have just been handed to the court. I rerer to the letter dated 30 March 2001, following the ones submitted by the French party, which (clariryJ the contents or the same. Let me very brielly make rererence to this letter. I must say that the objective or these documents is to create conrusion regarding the current registration status orthe ship.

Let me read to you a paragraph orthe letter, which is already on Ihe file. It states that

The undersigned, Director and Senior Deputy Registrar o r the International Merchant Marine Registry or Belize, duly empowered by the Merchant Ships Act, ... , hercby cert ifies that the vessel GRAND PRINCE is registered under the flag or Belize, holding registration Number ...

and the number is then quoted. This letter clarifies the documents that France has submitted today.

Thank you very much, Mr President.

The Presidem: Thank you.

The Agent or France may resume his statement.

"


I'hlidoi rie de la Fra nce (sui te)

EXPOSE DE M. ALABRUNE AGENT DE BELIZE (PV.OI /4, F, p. 2-7)

Ai Alabrune :

• ORAND PRtNCE .

Je vous remell::ie, Monsieur Ie President. Monsieur Ie President, Messieurs les Juges, la rcqucle du Belize devrait, selon nous,

~tre I!canee par Ie Tribunal pour les raisons que nous avons exposCes II I'audience d'hier. Toutefois, Ie Tribunal ayant souhaitl! entendre les arguments de I'autre panie sur Ie fond de sa rcquete, nous entendons y rl!pondre et dl!montrer, A present, que la demande de mainlevee n'est pas fondee.

Pour pouvoir apprl!cier Ie bien·fonde de cene dcmande, Ie Tribunal doit n~cessairement panir de I'analyse des principaux ell!ments qui sont II I'origine de cette procl!dure. Ces ell!ments principaux sont simples et sont au nombrc de cinq.

II y a d'abord Ie fait qu'une infraction grave a I!tl! commise par Ie navire Grand Prince. II y. ensuite la circonstanee que la procl!dl11l! mise en oeuvre pour sanctionner celie

infraction a I!tl! conduitc avec diligence. Jl y • en troisieme lieu I. question de la caution qui. I!tl! fixtt pour que la saisie du

navire puisse ctre levl!e. II y a en qualrieme lieu la donntt fondamentale de la confiscation du navire

prononcee 4 titre de peine. II y a enfin l'l!ll!ment tenant A ce que ceue peine a I!tl! dl!daree d'exl!eution imml!diate. Je me propose de reprendll:: successivement chaeun de ees cinq I!ll!ments. Le premier point A considerer est Ie fait qu'une infraction grave a I!tf! eommise. La

partie adverse a I!te discrete sur ee point, mais n'avait pas con teste, dans sa rcquete, que deux delits avaient I!te commis, II savoir, premierement que Ie Grlllld Prince a omis de signaler son entrie dans la zone economique fran~aise et de dl!elarcr Ie tonnage de poissons dClenus II bard au moment de I'entric dans la zone I!conomique. Deuxiememenl, Ie Grand Prince a pratique la peche dans celie zone economique sans autorisation. De plus, et c'est un ell!ment tres important., Ie capiUine du navire a fonnellemenl rt(:onnu avoir eommis ce double deli!.

De ce fait, nous avons ete trts elQrlnb d'entcndre la partie adverse I ffinner ce mltin que Ie Grand Prince avait traverX la zone en direclion du Bresil el sans y ¢Cher. Comment la partie adverse peul.elle affinner qu'i! n'y a pas eu de ~ehc illicite dans la zone des Kerguelen alors que Ie eapitaine lui-m~me avail reconnu qu'il y avai t eu ¢che illicite" Comment III. partie adverse peut-elle affinner, comme elle I'a fait ce matin, que Ie navire I!lait entre dans II!. zone Ie jour m~me de son arnisonnement, Ie 26 decembre, alors que Ie navire s'etait bien garde! de signaler son entree dans III. zone au moment OU il Y est entre ., Comment la partie adverse peut-elle affinner que Ie Grand Prince traversait II!. zone en direc tion du Bresil alors que Ie eapitaine du Grand Prince a lui-mcme de!e lare devant les gendanne5, dans Ie proces-verba.l qui est entre V05 mains, qu'il venait de Durban el Ie rendait dans la zone tconornique des iles Kerguelen pour y ~eher '1

II impone c!galement de noter que Ie Grand Prince, dont on ignore toujours II qui il appartenait r6ellcment au moment des faits, n'elait pas ce navire de pecht paisible et innocent que 1'00 cherche II nous pn!-scnter. Contrairement iI. I'affinnation de la partie adverse, ce n'est pas la premiere fois que Ie Grand Prince commettait une infraetion. En effet, aprh que Its autoritl!s fran~aises eurent communique II l'Etat du pavilion l'arraisonnement de ce navire, Its autoritc!s du Belize onl rait savoir, par note verbale du Ministere des affaires I!trang~res du Belize du 4 janvier 2001, qui est entre vas mains, qu'elles entendaient rayer Ie Grand Prince


EXPOst DE M, ALABRUNE - 6 ...... ;12001, apr~s-midi

de leur registrc d'immalriculalion, car c't tll it la deuxiemc fois qu'une Infraction etait rclevCe • I'encontre de cc navire,

Nous avons appris enlui te, par une Icttre du 26 mars 2001 venant d' IMMARUE, l'adminiStnltion qui tient Ie rcgistre mari time du Belize, que la procedure de rc:trait du pavilion du Belize avail etC momentarw!ment suspendue: pour pc:rmeltre: la prtsente action devant votre Tribunal. L'armatcur a obtenu celie suspension en prttendant qu'jJ lOuhaitai t pouvoir sc: disculper devant Ie Tribunal international du droit de la mer. Cell ne chlnge rien II ce qui est indiqut par la note verba]e du 4 janvier, Ie navirc: Grond Pri11Ce avait dej' !!te note par 1c:s autoriles de Belize comme ayant commis unc infraction.

J'en viens mainlenant au deuxieme point qui concerne la brievet!! de la procedure. S'i1 nc ,'est «oule que peu de temps entre I'e tablisscment du proces-verbal de comparotion ella tcnue de I'audience, ce n'cs t pas, comme la partie advcrse cherche • vous en convaincre, pour eluder ]es dispositions de la Convention sur la prompte mainlcvee et la prom pte li bE:ra tion de I'equipage, mais bien au contrairc:, pour y satisfaire:.

Les faits de I'cs~e elaient en effc:t simples et non tontestc,. Le eapitoine, il convicnt de Ie rappeler, avait rt(:onnu avoir ~che dans la rone Cconomique des Kerguelen et de nombreux indices corroboraient eel aveu, indices suffisamment prtsentes dans les procbverbaux qui fi gurenl en particulier dans les annexes de la rc:quttc. II convenait done de: soumellrc: Ie plus rapidement possible Its faits. un tribunallfin qu'i l soil rapidcmcnt decide des sanctions, et de maniere: A ce qu'iJ soi t mis fin au contr6le judieiaire: qui tontraignait Ie capitaine: • demeure:r • II Rcunion. C'est pour cette raison que Ie procureur a convoque Ie capitaine: • I'audience correctionnelle la plus proche, conformement et dans Ie cadre des lois en visueur.

II n'y avail pas matiere: • ouvrir unc information et plus aucun aCle de procedure n'a done etc accompli avant I'audience com:ctionnelle. DCs lors, il n'y avai t aucunc raison de Illisscr perdurer une si tuation intermedill ire. II n'y avait done pas A plOprcment parlcr de ehangement de pratique: de III part des juges, mais une IIdaptation de III procedure au fait de ]a cause.

Ce<:i a permis de laisscr Ie moins longtemps possible Ie capitaine et I'armateur dans I'allente, dans I'cxpeelative, mais tout en leur ]aissant un de]ai sumsant pour orgaru5Cr leur defense. Lc: capitaine n'a done ete prive d'iocun droiL 11 nc paratt d'liI1eurs pas, a la Ie<:ture du jugement du tribunal OOfTeCtionnel, que Ie eapitaine au son conseil se soient plaint de la «Ierite de la procedure, I]ars qu'i l, auraient pu protester devant Ie tribunal OOfI'C(:lionncl Ie 23 janvier et demander, s'ils estimaient que: la procedure etai t trop rapide, un renvoi de l'audimce II une date uhcrieure pour prcparer leur dcfense. lis ne I'ont pas fait. Le 23 janvier, it n'y I lueune contestation de la part du capitaine: quant • la date el quam aux fai t que: I'audienee devai t se tcoir Ie jour meme. II n'y a pas contestAt ion de eelte date, tout 'implement paree que Ie eapitaine reconna!t les faits.

J'en viens maintenant au lroisieme point qui conceme la caution. Scion Ie demandeur, la rapidite du tribuna] flll~ai, aurai t em.,eeM Ie ft,glement de la caulion pcrmcttant d'obtenir la mainlevee de la saisie et dont il conteste aujourd'hui Ie montanl. E.n ~alite, l'armateur, homme d'affaires avise, comme Ie monlrC la rapidit!! avec laque J1 e Ie Grand Princt! a cte vendu d'une socicte • une autre:, aurai t eu larsement Ie temps de payer une caution ou d'ofTrir une: Karanlie bancaire: suffisante, s'i l ]'avail voulu. II nc pouvai t iKnorer qu'il lui serait demandC Ie verscment d'unc: caution. Dh Ie 26 decembre 2000, date de I'arraisonnement du navire, il pouvait commencer A prendre: des dispositions pour la mise en place d'unc garantie donI il pouvlit approximativemenl determiner Ie montanL

S'agissant du montant de la caution, Ie Tribunal obsc:rvera que ee montant fixe par ]e juge d'instance .. II 400 000 francs fran~lis se situc: entre ]e niveau fixe par votre Tribuna]


« ORAND PRINCE"

pour Ie Cnmo//co a 8 millions de francs cl Ie montant qui (lVait ete fixe par vOlre Tribunal eaalemenl pour Ie Monte COIl/ureo a 18 millions de francs.

II eSI egalement a nOler que Ie 19 feYrier, e'est·l·dire apres I'intervention du jugement du tribunal correctionnel, I'annateur saisit Ie juge d'instance - vow Ivez cette pike egalemenl dans votrc: dossier - l propos de la caution, mais vous remarquerez qu'il ne conleste pas Ie montant de la caution. Cc:ci mootrc: que Ie 19 feYrier, il n'eSlimait done pas que Ie monlant etait deraisonnable, mais que ce montanl etait en corn!lation avec la valeur du Grond Prince, valeur doni on veut aujourd'hui nous faire croire qu'elle est infinimenl moindre. Je dois dire, a ee propos, que now contestons, avec la plus extreme vigueur, les estimations qui onl ele avanctes ee matin par les experts dc I'aulre partie en ce qui concerne la valeur du baleau.

l'en viens maintenanl a la queslion de la fonne de la caution. Le juge d'instance a certc:s ordonne Ie paiement de la caul ion a la Caisse des rk!pOts el Consignations sous fonne d'espb::es ou dc cheque, mais je dois dire qu'i] est evident que, s'i l avail ete demandc! par I'amlateur au juge d'instanee, , un moment utile, c'esH\,·dire avant que Ie tribunal correetionne! ne se prononce, d'acccptcr que celie caution soil rtglee SOlIS la fonne d'une garantie bancaire, il est evident que si celte demande avait ele pre$Cntee au juge d'instance, elle aurail pu etrc: salisfaite, comme d'ailleurs cdl I ete Ie CIS pour Ie Celn/Qllco et Ie Monte COlljureo oil, a la suite des decisions prises par vOlre Tribunal, les juges onl donne! la possibililc! de s'aequitler de cetle caution sous la fonne d'unc garantie haneaire. Mais il n'y a pas eu de demande de celte nature avanlle 23 janvier, il n'y a pas eu d'appel de la decision du juge d'instancc.

Ce qu'iI faut retenir egalcment, c'es! qu'avant I'intervention du jugement sur Ie fond, I'armaleur n'ajamais tente de regler la caution ni fait la moindre proposilion pour Ie faire. III prc!fere attendre I'issue du procts correctionne!, espc!rant qu'i l echapperait a la confiscation. II n'a d'ailleurs pas etc! surpri! pat la dalc du procts correctionncl puisque cclte date etait fixee par Ie procureur dc la Rc!publique dh Ic II janvier.

Ce n'est que: presque un mois aprts Ie jugement au fond, c'est-a-dire en fevrier, qu'il saisit Ie juge d'instance d'une autre demande de modification de la fonne de: la caution et ille fait 1 un momenl ou iI savait pertinemme:nt que lejuge d'instance etait incompetent, puisque Ie: tribunal correctionnel s'etait prononce Ie 23 janvier. Cene demande adrc:uee par I'annateur Ie 19 ftvrier semble montrc:r qu'elle etait pctsc:nlte uniquc:menl pour ertcr un conflil qui pennettrait d'invoquer la violation de I'article: 292 de la Convention.

J'en viens au quatritme: point sur lequel votre Tribunal s'etait egale:menl intel'i'Oie dans les questions qu'il a adresstcs a la partie: f~aise el qui concerne la confiscation du navire. Vow savez en eITet que: Ie tribunal correctionnel, Ie 23 janvier, tenant compte de I. loyaute doni avait fail preuve Ie capitaine qui n'avail pas nie avoir commis une infraction, • prononce a I'encontrc: du capitaine une peine d'amende mod~ree de 200 000 ffllflCS, que Ie tribunal correctionnel a alloue 20 000 francs :I. chaque partie civile, mais qu'il a pronoDCe la confiscation du navire.

la confiscation de: la chose qui a servi , commettrc: I'infraction est, comme now I'avons rappcle dans nos observations terites, prevue en droit fran~ais par I'article 131-6 du code penal lorsqu'un delit est puni d'une peine d'emprisonnement. II s'agit d'unc: mesure frtquemment prononcee en repression de certaines infractions. Le droit penal r~is, oUIre les peines classiques d'amende et d'emprilOnnemenl, prtvoit toute une serie de peines complementaires ou alternalives afin de mieux adapter la repression au comportement deliclueux et e:mpkher la rtpetition de I'infraction.

S'agisSMt du Grand Prince, Ie tribunal correctionncl a pris lOin d'indiquer les raisons qui l'ont conduit' prononcer la confiscation. Je cite Ie juge:ment rendu Ie 23 janvier que: vow avez eBalemenl dans voice dossier:


EXPOSE Df! M. ALAORUNE - 6 IvrillOOI, Ip,b-midi

Attendu ... qu'i l importe essenliellement dans ce type de d!!lil, doni la decouverte necessile la mise en place d'importants ct couteulC moyens matl!ricls, d'en I!vitcr la reill!mlion et d'em~cher que les coupables puissenltirer profi l de leur action dl!lictueuse.

II convient de signaler au Tribunal que si les infmctions de pecht sont punies en droil fran~ais par des peine!: d'emprilonncmenl, cette peine d'emprisonnement n'esl applicable qu'aulC rcssortissanls f~ais. mais n'esl pas applicable a des ressortis5aIlts d'Etats Parties a la Convention des Nations Unies sur Ie droit de la mer. Sont ainsi parfaitemenl respccl!!es la Convention del Nalions Unies sur Ie droit de la mer et la l UptriOritl! du traitl! par mpport aulC lois fran~aiscs, principe fonnule II I'artiele 55 de la Consti tution f~aise, que d'ailleurs I'autre partie a eu I'amabilite de nous rappeler.

J'ajoule enfin que la Fmnce - et cela a etl! dejA mentionne hier par Ie Professeur Queneudce - n'est pas, loin de lA, Ie seul pays" prevoir la confiscation de navires surpris en action de pkhe illicile. Ctst Ie cas notamment d'Etats leis que Fidji, la Grenade, la JamaYque, la NOllVelie-Ulande, la Norvege, Ie Portugal, la Russie, el d'aulTe.$ eneore ct, pour ne prendre qu'un exernple. dans Ie cas du premier Etat que j'ai cill!, Fidji, Ie Marine Space Act de 1977 prt\l()ienl dans sa scelion 18, je cite:

On conviction of tM aWTlflr, master or licensee of an offence lImier sect/on 16, Ihe court maya/so order the forfeillire to the Crown of Ihe jiJhing vessel and any fish, fishing gear, OPP(lrotus, cargo and stores found ther,ln or thereon.

J'en viens au cinquieme point sur lequcl Ie Tribunal s'est interroae el qui conceme l'elCecution pfOvisoire des peines prononeees par Ie tribunal correc;:l ionnel. II faut dire sur ce point qu'il est evident que Ie prononce d'une peine telle que la confiscation n'a veritablement de senl que s'il eSI possible d'en faire one application imml!diale. Cest pour celie raison que I'aniele 471 du code de procedure ~nale dispose, dans son demier al in!!., je cile, que « Lcs sanctions ~nalel pronone!!es en applicat ion des artic les 1]1-6" 1]1·11 du Code ~nal peuvent fire d!!elnrees elCeeutoires par provision. )I Nous avons vu que la confiseation fait panic des peine! qui sont prevues par I'anide I] 1-6. II resulte de I'application de ee lelC te qu'il ne peut pas ftre sursis <\ I'exl!eulion d'un jugement de confiscation, meme Ii un appel eSI forme contre ce jugement de confiscation.

Contrairemenl .. ee que lOutienl faussement., sur ee point., I'autre panie, la dec ilion du juge correetionncl de rendre executoire immediatement I. eonfiscation du navire n'avait pas pour but d'emp&her l'Etal du pavilion d'inlenler une acl ion en mainlevee devant Ie Tribunal international du droit de la mer. La finalite poursuivie COnsiltait, cornme I'a dit Ie tribunal corrcetionnel, dans I'attendu que nous avons cite preeedemment, t\ eviter que les coupables puisscnl tirer profit de leur action d!!lictuelle et, a-I-il IjOUI!! encore, «pour permettre l'eITeetivite de la peine )I.

II convient en outre de faire remarquer qu'en mali~re de confiscation d'une chose qui a servi 1 eommettre I'infraction, la confi scation est., pour des raisons que VOU! comprendTC7. lisl!mcnt. presque toujours assonie de l'elCeculion immtdiale. Tel cst Ie cas en mati~re de repression du blanchiment de capitaulC, de faux-monnayage. de tnfie de Ilupefianl$, de f.ux I!!moignage, de chanlage ou encore de delil d'outrage II la justice. Tel cst aussi Ie cas s'agissanl de II) punition du crime conln! I'humanit!!. Ce n'esl pas pour moi une maniere d'assimiler I'activ it!! de p&:he illicite t\ une act ivit!! criminelle puisque, en droit rmn~ais, clle est qualifiee de delil. el mcme si plusieurs organisations ecologisles et les pecheurs pratiquant I_ pkhe legale et reglementee qualifienl lOuvent de pirates ceulC qui s'adonnent ., une grande


"GRAND PRINCE.

&:helle .. 1a ~ehe illicite, En 10UI cas, conlrairement aux affinnat ions du demandeur, la decision d'ex&:ution immfdiale de la confiscation n'a rien d'extmordinaire,

II convienl, pour fIre complel sur eelte procfdure, d'ajouter que Ie Grcmd Prince, ayan! ftf confisque avec eITet immediat, 1a propriftf du navire s'est trouvee, eomme I'a trh bien expliquf hier Ie I'rofesseur Queneudec, transferee ~ l'Etat frano;:ais, mais que ce tmnsfel1 de proprifte ~ l'Etat frano;:ais, du fait de I'appel, n'est pa!i encore definitif, Nous savons en efTet que l'afTaire du Grand Prince a c:te portee devant la cour d'appel de Saint-Denis de la Reunion, t.. cour d'appel deVfll ~ nouveau apprec:ier les faits de la cause:, la eour d'appel poWTII evenluellemcnt eonfinner Ie jugement et maintenir la confiscation et elle pou".. a\lSSi, 5i eUc I'estime nfcessaire, modifier ou lifonner Ie jugcmcnt rendu par Ie tribunal correctionncl.

Cene modification peUI eIre dans difTerentes directions, elle !>Cut tres bien augmenter ou riduire Ie montanl dc I'amende prononcee eontre Ie capitlline, Elle pourn maintenir la confiscation ou, au contraire, elle poUrrll. ordonner la restitution du navire • son ancien propriftairc, Ce seront Ics pouvoin de la cour d'appel. Mais, quelle que soit la d&:ision que rendra la cour d'appel, il nc pourra plus I!tre exigf de caution ni ordonne de mainlevfc qui n'ont plus de mi500 d'i!tre" ce stade avance de la procedure,

Tels sont, Monsieur Ie Plisident, Messieurs les Juges, les elc!ments principaux que Ie Tribunal serail amerlt .. prendn: en considb'ation dans I'examen de la demande de mainlevee, Pris ensemblc, ees flemcnlS conduisent .. la conclusion que I'allegation avancfc de la violation de la Convention par la France n'est pas fondee, qu'elle n'cst ni plausible, nj soutenable, Dans ees conditions, Ie Tribunal devrait saisir celie occasion pour bien preciser que la procedure de I'article 292 n'est pas la voie de recours automatiquement ouverte .. tout annateur de p&he dont les navires se livrent, sur une grande echelle, .. des activites de ~ehe illicite.

Comme nous I'avions souligne hier, votre deeision sera done trh importante parce qu'iJ s'agira d'unc question de principe. Votre d&:isioo est bicn sfir tres atlendue par les partics, elle cst attendue par la communaute juridique intemationale, et j'ajoute, si vous mc pcnnetlcz, Monsieur Ie President, que votre d&:ision est attendue sur I'ile de la Reunion par taus ceux qui tmvaillent dans Ie sccteur c!conomique de III pf:ehe et qui sont angoissc!s par Ie pillage des ressources halieutiques s itu~es dans les eaUl( sous juridicI ion frano;:aise dans celie ligion. Lc Tribunal doil savoir, par exemplc, que Ie Camouco, dont la saisie ete Icvee suite i votre d&:ision, continuc son activite de ~che illicite sous un autre !'10m, Arvisa Prlmflro.

Votre dfcision est allendue par les gardcs roles qui veillent jour et nuit. dans des conditions extremement diffieiles, pour surprendre et appdhender ceUl( qui se livrent .. la pkhe illicite, Votre decision est attendue par les juges de 111e de la Reunion qui Ont applique! scropuleusement les ~gles du droit international et du droit frano;:ai! et dont I'hoMcur est aujourd'hui mis en cause puisqu'ils sonl aeeU5fs de fraude A la loi. Votre decision est altendue par Ics organisations qui, .. I'~ehelle internationale, veillen! A la preservation des equilibres ~eologiqllts et nlertcnt presque quotidiennement I'opinion mondiale conlre les mefaits commit par les pimtes de la mer. Votre d&:ision enfin cst allcndue par de nombn:ux Etal3, en partieulier des Elal3 du sud, qui son! des EIaIS cOtien el don! Its cawc $On! tees souvcnt pill~cs par ces pirates de la mer. Nombrewc $Onl en effel Its Etats qui n'ont pa!i les moyens matfriels suffisants pour orpniser III surveillance de leun taUX et liprimer I'exercice de la p&.he illici te.

Je vous remercie, Monsieur Ie Ptaident.

The President: Thank you very much.

Would the Agent ofthc Applicant like to add anything 10 what he said earlier?


STATEMI!NTOF MR PENELAS ALVAREZ_6 April 2001, p.m.

Rt:ply of Belize

STATEMENT OF MR PENELAS ALVAREZ AGENT OF BELIZE (PV.O I/4, E, p. 9-13]

Mr Penelas All'Qrez: Mr President, Members of the Tribunal, we have heard again how .... 'C: can avoid prompt release by invoking domestic ~gulations. Pcmaps I may make reference to what happened with Monte Con/urco. a previ0U5 case of this Tribunal, after the Tribunal pronounced its judgment. The Tribunal decided that Monte Con/urea should be re leased by France upon a posting of a reasonable bond fixed by this Tribunal. While the shipowner was trying to pay the bond, the week after the judgment was pronounced, the [criminal) oourt of Saint-Denis carried out a prompt confiscation pro<:eeding, as in Ihis case. It decided to execute the confiscation notwithstanding appeal. In practical tenns, the Monte Con/urco is still detained in La R4!union. That is the reality. It is difficult for me to say this, but that judgment is now wet paper. The vessel is detained in La R4!union. That is how the authorities in La R4!union a~ acting and how they regard the Convention and the decisions oflhis Tribunal.

Perhaps I may brieny eomment on what the FreDeh representative mentioned in the context of illegal fiShing in FreDeh waters. France bas many fe .... 'C:r fishing incidents than most of the coastal States while France, as a powerful oounlt)', has many more means to control its waters. I shall give an example. Ireland has many fishing incidenu with Gennan, French and Spanish vessels. Ireland am:sts ships and carries out judicial pro<:cedings but always penniU the prompt release o f the ships against a reasonable bond. [n Spain we also have many problems wilh the French vessels in the [Bay of Biscay]. The French use illegal fishing gear. They are arrested; proceedings follow, but they are always permitted 10 be released upon a bond. That happens with Argentina, Angola and Ghana, and with most other countries involved. Thc only country which is trying 10 deal with these matters in a different way, disregarding artiele 73.2 of the Convenlion, is France. The other countries fight this unacceptable practice because illegal fishing cannot be justified.

Th. Pnsldent: We do not have the facu of those cases. You have not submitted documents in support of what you say. It would be appreciated if you would avoid reference to other matters which are not before us.

Mr Penelas Ail'ora: Yes, Mr President. The representatives of Franee were also making reference to other eountries whcre oonfisealion was pcnnitled.

The President: [t is not a question of fads; it i. a question of law. If you want to ~fer 10 the laws of any eountry, you are at liberty to do 10.

Mr Penelos Alvarez: Thank you. In any event, it cannot be alleged that several fishing incidents are faeed in order to avoid the means provided by the Convention for fighting such iDeidenu. The request for prompt release eannOI be avoided.

As I mentioned yesterday, these proceedings are independcnt of those carried out by the domestic courts. Both run in parallel. As we also indicated, if the theory sustained by

"


"GRAND PRINCE"

France prevails, a State could avoid prompt release of vessels and crews just by carrying out speedy proceedings for prompt confiscation or prompt imprisonment, as the case may be, and deciding the execution o f the decision notwithstanding appeal. By invoking domestic laws the requirement stated undcr article 73.2 of the Convention would be evaded. That would affect not only vessels but crews.

It is obvious that the court of appeal in La Reunion or the Supreme Court in Paris could overturn the decision of the court of first instance. There are arguments in defence of confiscation not being Ii proportional sanction to the offence committed. Evidence of that is the low amount of the fine imposcd upon the Captain: 200,000 French francs.

However, the most important factor is that even if the said decision is overturned by the court of appeal or the Supreme Court, that court will not pronounce anything regarding release upon a bond or other security as it is not the subject matter of the appeal. We would still have to wait until the Supreme Court pronounced a final and firm decis ion.

As the French delegation explained yes terday, it is obvious that confiscation supposes in principle the attachment of the goods by the confiscating State. [f article 73.2 of the Convent ion did not exist, the immediate effect would be the detention of the vessel and its expropriation by the detaining State. However, as far as article 73.2 is applicable, which is not under discuss ion, the vessel must be promptly released against a reasonable bond. That requirement, as held by the Tribunal, cannot be subjected to any domestic laws or regulations, only to the posting of a reasonable bond.

I shall now comment on the ownership of Grand Prince. It seems that some confusion has been created concerning the cert ificates o f class of the ship. The current shipowner bought the vessel on 27 March 2000, as is shown by the contract o f sale, which was duly notari7.ed and is enclosed as exhibit 2 of our Application. Document number 3 of the Application is evidence of the fact that on 16 October 2000 the shipowner of Grand Prince was Paik Commercial Corp. That ownership has also been confirmed by the International Mcn::hant Marine Registry of Belize in its leiter dated 30 March 2001, which was ordered following indications by the Registrar, and which forms part of the file.

The certificate further states that, despite the expiration of the provisional patent of navigation. the vessel is still registered in Belize. Documents relating to the stlltus of the vessel. such as the final patent of navigation and the ship sta tion licence of the vessel, await processing by the Regisuy. The certificate of class seems to create confusion. As you can sec, it was issued on 23 June 1999. As stated in the same document, it expires after a term of five years. Then::fore, it is evident that the document was issued when the ownership corresponded to a former owncr, NOYCAN. prior to the purchase of the vessel by the current owner. Paik Commercial.

It should also be noted that the only survey. which was due in January 2000, was carried out in November 1999 by the previous owner o f the vessel. That is the simple reason why Paik Commercial docs not appear in the class ification certificate. It has not had the necessity to make any arrangement for the time being regarding the classification certi ficates. If the Tribunal wishes our party to provide further evidence as regards ownership, we should be happy to do so.

[n conclusion, France has breached the Convention by first fiKing a totally unreasonable bond and, moreover, only one week thereafter, by a prompt confiscation proceeding combined with an eKeeution notwi thstanding appeal, impeding any possibility of n::lease.

For all those reasons, I maintain all our submissions, which 1 shall now repeat:

48


STATEMENT OF MR PENELAS ALVAREZ_ 6 April 2001. p.m.

I. To deehlTe that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under anicle 292 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to hear the present application.

2. To declare the present application admissible.

3. To declare that France failed to comply with anicle 73, parngraph 2, of the Convention, as the guarantee fixed for release of Grnnd Prince is not reasonable as to its amount. nature or form.

4. To declare that France failed to comply with anicle 73, pangrnph 2, of the Convention by having evaded the requirement of prompt re lease under this article by not allowing the release of the vessel upon the posting of a reasonable, or any kind of, guarnntee alleging that the vessel is confiscated and that the decision of confiscation has been provisionally executed.

5. To decide that France shall promptly release the Grand Prince upon the posting of a bond or other security to be determined by the Tribunal.

6. To determine that the bond or other security shall consist o f an amount of two hundred and six thousand one hundred fony nine (206,149) Euros, or its equivalent in French Francs.

7. To determine that the monetary equivalent to (a) 18 tonnes offish on board the Grand Prince held by the French authorities, and valued on 123,848 Euros (b) the fishing gear, valued on 24,393 Euros (c) the fishing materials valued on 5,6 10 Euros, totalling 153,851 Euros, shall be considered as ~urity to be hcld or, as the case may be, retumcd by France to this party.

8. To determine that the bond shall be in the form of a bank guarantee.

9. To determine that the wording of the bank guarantee shall, among other things, state the following:

A. In case France returns to the shipowner the items refem::d to under point 7 (of the present submissions):

"The bank guarantee it is issued in consideration of France re leasing the Grand Prince, in relation to the incidents dealt with in the Order o f 12 January 2001 of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Paul and that the issuer undertakcs and guarantces to pay to France such sums, up to 206, 149 Euros, as may be determined by a final and firm judgement or decision of the appropriate domestic forum in France or by agreement of the panics. Payment under the guarantee would be due promptly after receipt by the issuer

"


of a WTitten demand by the competent authority of France accompanied by a certified copy of the final and finn judgement or decision or agreement."

B. [n casc France does not return to the shipowner the itcms rcrcrred to under point 7 (of the present submissions):

"The bank guarantee it is issued in considcration of France releasing the Grand Prince, in relation to the incidents dealt with in the Order of 12 January 2001 o f the Court of First Instance of Saint-Paul and that the issuer undertakes and guarantees to pay to France such sums, up to 52,298 Euros, as may be detennined by a final and finn [judgement or] decision of the appropria te domestic forum in France or by agreement of the parties. Payment under thc guarantee would be due promptly after receipt by the issuer of a written demand by the competent authority o f France accompanied by a certified copy o f the final and finn judgement or decision or agreement."

10. To detenninc that the bank guarantee shall be invoked only if the monctary equivalent of the seeurity held by France is not sufficient to pay the sums as may be detennined by a final and finn judgement or decision of the appropriate domestic forum in Francc.

Mr President, Members o f the Tribunal, thank you very much for your kind attention.

The Presidenl: I presume thallhose arc your final submissions.

Mr Pene/as A/varez: Yes, that is right.

The President: Will you pleasc have them signed and handed over to the Registrar?

Mr Pene/as Alvarez: Yes.

The Presidenl: Thank you very much.

I now give the floor to Ihe Agent of France.

M. Alabrrme : Monsieur Ie President, pennettez-vous que Ie Professeur Quc!neudec s'exprime en rtpoose avant que je prtsente les conclusions finales?

Thr Prrsidenl: Yes.

"


EXPOSE DE M. QUEN"EUDEC - 6avriI200I,apm-midi

Dupliqu Cl d e la France

EXPOSE DE M. QU~EUDEC CON5EIL DE BELIZE (PV.OIl4, F, p. 11-12)

M. Queneudtc : Monsieur Ie President, Messieurs 1es Juges. bricvement, uoe remarque, et unc scule, pour conslaler que nous sommes d'iccord avec la partie adverse pour dire que la procedure de I'article 292 de la Convention est indc!pendante des procedures judiciaires nationales. Nous n'avons pas di l autre chose hier. Mais ees procc!duresjudiciaires nalionll les, et leurs rcsultatJ, soni des elements que Ie Tribunal ne peul ignorer parce qu'il est saisi d'unc demande de mainlevc!e dans Ie cadre de 1'lIrticle 292, car la procc!dure organisc!e par I'article 292 dc la Convention ne peUI pas ~tre envisagee commc s'exenranl dans I',bslrai!, Celie procedure prend rIIcine dans une serie de faits conerets, i savoir: un arraisonnement d'un navire surpris en infraction de ~che, la saisie de ce navire, la confinnation de celte saisie par un juge, Icqucl precise que la saisie peut etre levee moyennant Ie versement d'une caution suffisante, el une poursuile intentee contre Ie capitaine en tant qu'auteur presume d'une s-!rie d'infmctions debouchant sur une condamnation dudit capitaine. Au regard du Tribunal, ee sont Ii les elements de fai l qui sont 1\ la base de la misc en oeuvre de la proc&ture de prom pte mainlevee, La prom pte main/evee suppose, bien entendu, la fixalion d'une caution, mais elle suppose aussi Ie versement de: la caution ou la prtsentation d'unc sarantie pour que la mainlevee de saisie puissc intcI'Venir. 5i ceci n'cst pas fait. il nc peut pas y avoir maiolevee.

La question qui se pose est ,implement de savoir 5i, dans Ie cadre d'une action en prompte mainlevee, sur la base de I'article 292, il est possible de demllOde, au Tribunal de se proooneer sur la legalite au regard de la Convention sur Ie droit de III mer du prononce par un juge repressi f d'une confiscation l titre de sanction pour un dc! lil de peche illicite.

" ne faut pas en effet que Ie T ribunal perde de vue que, dans celte affaire en particulier, Ie point de depart, la base de l'aiTaire, c'est une violalion de ta Convention, une violation des disposi tions de II Convention, commise par un navire de p&he ne respectlnt pas les droilS souverains d'un Etat cOtier dans sa zone tcooomique exclusive.

C'esl 1a scute remarque que je souhaitais raire, Monsieur Ie President. Je VOlls demanderais maintenant de bien vouloir donner la parole 1\ I'agent du Gouvemement ~i, pour qu'i l pn!scnte les coneJusions finales du Oouvemement f~aill dans eetle affaire.

Merei, Monsieur Ie I'resident.

"


.. ORAND PRINCE II

EXPOSE DE M, ALABRUNE AGENT DE BELIZE rPV,Olf4, F,p, 12J

M. A/(lbrullf! : Monsie:ur Ie: President, avec votre permission, je lirai les conclusions fina les du Gouvemement de la Republiquc: frano;:aise.

Le: Gouvememenl de la Republiquc: frano;:aise prie Ie: Tribunal, rejctanl toutes conclusions contraires presentees au nom de l'Etat du Belize,

1. A titre prineipal, de eonstate:r que la demande de mainlevee d\!posee: Ie 21 mars 2001 au nom du Be:lize: est irrccc:vable, qu'en tout etat de: cause Ie Tribunal n'a pas compete:nce pour en connaitre ct que ce:lle de:mande doit, des lors, etre «artee.

2, A litre: subsidiaire. de dire et juger que les conditions auxquelles est normaleme:nt soumise I'adoption pllr Ie Tribunal d'unc decision de prom pte mainlevee des Ie depOt d'une caution raisonnable, ne sont pas remplies dans les circonslances de I'espece et qu'il y a done lieu de debouter Ie requerant de sa demande.

Ced conclut mon intervention, Monsieur Ie President. Nous vous remettrons Ie texte de nos conclusions. 1e VOllS remcrcie, Monsieur Ie President.

"


CLOSURE Of THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS - 6 Apri.2001, p.m.

C losu re or t he Ora l Proceeding! (PV.0 1/4, E. p. 14-1 5J

The President: Thank you. Will you please give a signed copy to the Registrar? J thank the Agenl of France.

That brings us to the end of 1m: oral proceedings in the "Orand Prince" Case. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Agents and Counsel of bolh parties for the presentations that they have made before the Tribunal over the past two days. The Tribunal appreciates the personal courtesies shown by Agents and Counsel on both sides.

1be Registrar will now address questions relating to documentation.

The Registrar: llumk you, Mr President.

In conformity with article 86, paragraph 4, of the Rules of the Tribunal , the parties have the right to correct thc transcripts o f their presentations and statements made by them in the oral proceedings. Any such corrections should be submitted as soon as IXIssible, but in any case not later than the end of Tuesday, 10 April 2001.

In addition, the parties art: requested to submit the originals of documents submitted by facsimile or as copies. The parties are also requestcd to certify that all the documents that have been submitted and which are not originals are true and accurate copies of the originals of those documents. For those purposes, they will be provided with a list of the documents concerned.

In accordance with the Ouidelines concerning the preparation and presentation of cases before the Tribunal, they are also requested to furnish the Registry with additional copies o f documents that have not been supplied in sufficient numbers.

Thank you, Mr President.

T~ PreSident: 1be Tribunal will now withdraw to deliberate on the case. The Judgment will be read on a date to be not ified to the Agents. The Tribunal has tentatively set a date for the delivery of the Judgment. That date is 20 April 2001. The Agents will be informed reasonably in advance if there is any change in this schedule.

In accordance with the usual practice, 1 request the Agents to remain at the disposal of the Tribunal in order to provide any further assistance and information that it may need in its deliberations prior to the dclivery of the Judgment.

The sitting is now closed.

The sif/ing c/Qses at 1.45 p.m.


"GRAND PRINCE"

PUBLIC SIlTING HELD ON 20 APRI.L 2001, 3.00 P.M.

Tribunal

Present: President CHANDRASEKHARA RAO; Vice-President NELSON; Judges CAMINOS, MAROTrA RANGEL, YANKOV, YAMAMOTO, KOLODKIN, PARK, BAMELA ENGO, AKL, ANDERSON, VUKAS, WOLFRUM, LAING, TREVES, MARS IT, EIRIKSSON, NOlA YE, JESUS; Judge ad hoc COT; Registrar CHiTrY.

For Belize; [See sitting of 5 April 200 I, 10.00 a.m.]

For "' ranee; Mr Michel Trinquier, Deputy Director for the Law of the Sea, Fisheries and the Antarctic, Office of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as COllllsei.

AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE DU 20 AVRIL 200l , 15H 00

Tribunal

Prisellls: M. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO, Prisident; M. NELSON, Vice-Prisident; MM.CAMlNOS, MAROTrA RANGEL, YANKOV, YAMAMOTO, KOLODKIN, PARK, BAMELA ENGO, AKL, ANDERSON, VUKAS, WOLFRUM, LAING, TREVES, MARSIT, EIRIKSSON, NOlA YE, JESUS, juges; M. COT,jllge ad hoc; M. CHITTY, Greffier.

Pour Belize:

Pour la France ;

[Voirl'audience du 5 avril 2001, 10 h OOJ

M. Michel Trinquier, sous-directeur du droit de 1a mer, des »Cches et de l'Antarctique (\ la direction des affaires juridiques du Ministcre des affaires c!trangcres, comme consei!.

Reading of the Judgment [PV.01l5, E, p. 4-7, F, p. 1-4]

The Registrar: The Tribunal will today deliver its Judgment in the "Grand Prince" Case, Application for Prompt Release, Case NO.8 on the List of cases, Belize, Applicant and France, Respondent. The Tribunal heard oral arguments from the parties at three public sittings on 5 and 6 April 2001.

The hearings concluded with the final submissions of both panics which read as follows:


READING OF THE JUDGMEl-fT - 20 Apri12001 , p.m.

On bchalf of Odize:

I. To dec::lare that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under article 292 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 10 hear the present application.

2. To declare the present application admissible.

3. To declare that France failed 10 eomply with article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention, as the guarantee fixed for release of Orand Prince is not reasonable as to its amount, nalure or form.

4. To declare thaI France failed to comply with article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention by having evaded the requirement of prompt release under this art icle by nol allowing the release of the vessel upon the posting of a reasonable. or any kind of, guarantee alleging thai the vessel is confi scated and thaI the decision of confiseation has been provisionally executed.

5. To decide thaI France shall promptly release the Orand Prince upon the posting of a bond or other security to be determined by the Tribunal.

6. To determ ine thaI the bond or other security shall consist of an amount of two hundred and six thousand one hundred and forty nine (206, 149) Euros or ils equivalent in French Francs.

7. To determine that the monetary equivalent to (a) 18 tonnes of fish on board the Orand Prince held by the French authori ties, and valued on 123,848 Euros (b) the fi shing gear, valued on 24,393 Euros (c) the fishing materials valued on 5,610 Euros, totalHng 153,85 I Euros, shall be considcred as security to be held or, as the case may be, returned by Franee to this party.

8. To determine that the bond shall be in Ihe form of a bank guarantee.

9. To determine that the wording of the bank guarantee shall , among other things, Slate the followi ng:

A. In case France returns to the shipowner Ihe items refem:d to under point 7 (of the present submissions):

"The bank guarantee it is issued in consideration of France releasing the Orand Prince, in relat ion to the incidents dealt with in the Order of 12 January 2001 of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Paul and thai the issuer undertakes and guarantees to pay to Franee such sums, up to 206,1 49 Euros, as may be determ ined by a final and finn judgement or deeision of the appropriate domestic forum in

"


"ORAND PRINCE"

France or by agreement of the parties. Payment under the guarantee would be due promptly after receipt by thc issuer of a written demand by the competent authority of France accompanied by a certified copy of the final and finn judgement or decision or agreement:'

13. In case France does not return to the shipowner the itcms referred to under point 7 (of the present submissions):

"The bank guarantee is issued in consideration of France releasing the Grand Prince, in relation to the incidents dealt with in the Order of 12 January 200 I of the Court of First Instance of Saint-Paul and that the issuer undertakes and guarantees to pay to France such sums, up to 52,298 Buros, as may be determined by a final and finn judgement or decision of the appropriate domestic forum in France or by agreement of the parties. Payment under the guarantee would be due promptly after rcceipt by the issuer of a writtcn demand by the competent authority of France accompanied by a certified copy of the final and finn judgement or decision or agreement."

10. To determine that the bank guarantee shall be invoked only if the monelary equivalent of the securi ty held by France is not sufficient to pay the sums as may be determined by a final and firm judgement or decision of the appropriate domestic forum in France.

On behalf of France:

The Government of the Frcnch Republic requests the Tribunal, rcjccting all submissions to the contrary made on behalf of the State of Belize,

Mr President.

The Presidenl:

I. First, to note that the Application for prompt release filed on 21 March 2001 on behalf of l3elize is not admissible, that, in any case, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Application and that it must, therefore, be rejected.

2. Alternatively, to adjudge and declare that the conditions normally governing the adoption by the Tribunal of a decision concerning prompt release upon the posting of a reasonable bond have not been fulfilled under the circumstances of this case, and that, therefore, the Application by the Applicant should be denied.

Judge Thomas Mensah is not able to attend today's reading of the judgment, but asked that he be allowed to record his final vote from Iran. I will ask the Registrar to read the decision of the Tribunal on this matter.

"


R£ADlNO OF TilE JUDQMEN T _ 20 April 200t. p.m.

Mr Registrar.

The ReglSlrar: The decision of the Tribunal adopted on 12 Apri l 200 1 reads as follows:

Judge Thomas A. Mensah has infomled the Tribunal that he will be absent from Hamburg with effect from 14 April 2001, since he is required to visit Iran as Chairman o f the 'F4 ' Panel of the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) to inspect certain archeological sites in respect of which the Government of Iran has submilled claims for compensation to the ' 1<"4 ' Panel pursuant to Seeurity Council resolution 687/199 1. He has informed the Tribunal that the Government of Iran has made the nC(:essary arrangements for the visit.

Judge Mensah has sought the permission of the Tribunal to record his vote in writing in the "Grand Prince" Case although he will be absent when the formal vote is taken.

Judge Mensah was present at the public sittings held in this case on 5 and 6 April 200 1. He also participated in the deliberations of the Tribunal up to a point at which it had reached the substance of its decision.

The Tribunal decides that , in the special circumstances ment ioned by Judge Mensah, he should be allm.\'ed to record his final vote from Iran by facsim ile.

Judge Mensah reeorded his final vote in accordance with the decision o f the Tribunal. Mr President.

The President: I now calion the Agent o f the Applicant to note the representation of Belize.

Mr Pene/(I$ Alvarez: [Belize is represented by Mr Penelas Alvarez. Agent, and Ms Go/coechea F6bregas. Counsel.]

The President: Thank you. I now call on the Agent of the Respondent to note the representation of France.

M. Trinquier: rLa France est reprben/de par M. Trinquler. conseil.]

The President: Thank you. I will now read re levant extrn.cts from the ludgment in the ~Grand Prince~ Casc. [The President reads the extracts.] The sitting is now closed.


These texts are drawn up pursuant to article 86 of the Rules of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and constitute the minutes of the public sittings held in The "Grand Prince~ Csse (Belize v. France) , Prompt Release.

Ces textes sont r6dig6s en vertu d'article 86 du R6glement du Tribunal international du droit de La mer et constituent Ie pr~s·verbal des audiences publiques de I'Affaire du f( Grand Prince . (Belize c. France), prompte mainlevlte.

La President \j ROdiger Wolfrum President

Le 2 mars 2007 2 March 2007

"

~ Le reffier ilippe Gauller

Registrar

Documents – Documents

DOCUMENTS 169

Authorization – Autorisation

a) Authorization issued to Mr Penelas Alvarez by the Attorney General of Belize dated 15 March 2001, with Apostille


c.u,~ ___ AiiL<\.".,--:-_ __ _

1 ..... blle IN.: .1~~~~~i~~~~~ 1. H ........ . . ,. _,,~

3. Afll", .u ·

4. BeiliU. .. I ",IIIp <II

, • t; - •

CI!RTlfl l>D

.. Ulld .. No. __ ''''"\C~C\~;.<.,,'-\., ___ _ '" Seal I I. SI, .. lw

C~T L

DOCUMENTS 171

b) Notification of the appointment of Mr Penelas Alvarez by the Attorney General of Belize dated 26 March 2001

AlTORNEY GENERAL'S MINISTRY Tel: 011-501-11· 22504/ 20519 'h: 011-501-8-23390

hlmop!n • •• 111 .. Centnl ArmiriCII

Dur ~,r'

~""Iwf '" uur I.n .. dated 1$ MardI. ~OOI I Our Rtf. l3l171IP1.XVtOlt 1:1 ",l,Wdin, IiIc' :lPI'lic~11OrI ror protnpt rckiS<; , .. ",he lishi"ll v ...... ~ "GllAt'oU PR IN( "I:-. "t hcrctn ",nli,,,' ,he 3ppU,nunml 01 \1;. "Ihctto I'mdIS "Inn;;. _ ~~Tllln ac. in !h., ' ILlUcr un ho,-h;ol! "flk(;,.

t ID( f Rtc:\ 'HA ~1X.i[S ~.LLISCll"rT io.:XrlRl:pl:LSalO;1-"I~)OI~ HAM", Rr.

" .. -


c) Désignation de M. Alabrune en qualité d’agent du Gouvernement français par le directeur des affaires juridiques du Ministère des affaires étrangères de la France en date du 3 avril 2001

MlNISTERE Drs

AFFAlllES IET RAt .... C ERES

DI.A.£CTION DES ,u"FAlRES JURIDIQutS

LeDJndC/ir

Telephone: 01.43.17.53.00 TBkopie : 01 .43.17.43.59 RCfirence: N° DJIBB/cr

Monsieur k Greffier,

Pam, It 3 avril 2001

'-""" '-'-'" . ........

III t'honneur de VOIIS faire Slvoir que, dwle cadte de faffaire coocer-oanl farraisooncruc:p\ du D~virc "GRAND PRINCE", objet de votre correspondmce I'JI date du 22 mars, Monsieur Fr.tI~ois i\l.ABRUNE • Direcreur adjoint des Afftires juridiques '11 Ministere des Affaires eumgeres, cst disigne m qualite d'lgetll du GoINI!11IemeD.1 fnn~ D !IeflI lcoompagJIe de Messieurs Jean-Pierre QENEUDEC, professeur embiIe de droit mtmlltional i Wniversil6 de Paris I et Michel TRINQtnER. SouS-Dircd.CUl du droit de La Mer, des Pecbes et de fAntarctique IU Minislere des AJWres etrlllgC:res ling que de Maitre JKqUes BELOT, AvoeM' Saml Denis de 1a Reunion. POUT les besoinli de cette affaire, Monsitw AlABRUNE I eJu doTUicilc IU Consulllt CiC:nmJ de France • Ihmbo~

Ie VOlIS pric de bieo vouloir agOer, Monsieur \c Greffier, fexpression de nlI COllsidenrioD disringuee.

MonJieur Gritakwnar r.. cumv Grtffier llUBUNAL II'IT£RNATIONAL DV DROrr D[ LA MER A..m lOlera_Donl leD ScqerlcbtJhof I ll6Q9IL\MBOURG R£PUBLlQUt: Jo"EDERAL£ D'ALUMAGNt:

DOCUMENTS 173

Designation of Judge ad hoc – Désignation d’un juge ad hoc

a) Lettre de M. Alabrune au Greffier en date du 3 avril 2001, avec en annexe :- curriculum vitae de M. Cot (non reproduit)


b) Statement of Mr Penelas Alvarez dated 4 April 2001 concerning the nomination of a judge ad hoc by France

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA TO THE AnENTION OF THE REGISTRAR

The -Grand Prince" cate

Dear Sir ..

o , APR 20}i li ........................

I acknowIedQe receipt of the latter 01 France appointing a judge ad hoc.

Miele 19 paragraph 1 01 the Rules, with the aim of avoiding that the appointment of a judge ad hoc is used In a 'MOf1g way or as an obstacle to the normal course of proceedings Of the normal organisation of the Tribonal, requires, very clealty, Ihat the party IM'xllntends to choose a Judge ad hoc "shall notify the Tribunal of if s intentiOn as soon as possible and In any eYent "not later that two months before the time limit fIXed for the filing of a counter memorial.

In the present case, France Is infonning about the appointment of the Judge ad hoc only two days prior to the hearings fixed by lhe Tribunal, and when the time limit for filing a counter memorial has already expired . This party was only notified of such a decision today, thai Is, the day before the hearings, whiCh prevents us, and we can imagen that also the Tribunal, from analysing the competence of the proposed judge to act as member of the Tribunal, and In Irs case to make the correspondent opposiUon.

It most be noted that France was notified 01 the Order of the Trtb4.mal fixing the eLales for the hearings on the 22"" March , 2001. It is unacceptable thai since then France have not Informed the Tribunal about irs decision until yesterday. Further, on the -r April , 2001 the representatives of the parties met with the President of the Tribunal and neither In thai occasion France mentioned nothing about his pretension of appolnllng a Judgo ad hoc.

/I IS quite evkjent that France is once more (in the present case) hying to put obstacle to the pl"oooechng.

Notwithstanding, and in order not 10 obstacle the wor\(: of the Tribunal, aVOiding further iocidents , will respect the any decision the Tribunal takes in respect of this matlel'.

Hamburg, 4 April , 2001 .

Alberto P As agent ~

DOCUMENTS 175

c) Letter from the Registrar to Mr Penelas Alvarez dated 4 April 2001

Sir,

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA TRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL DU DROIT DE LA MER

Am ImcmaliOIlalen SecgerichlShof l. 22609 Hamburg, Gennany Tel: 49 (40) 3560-7270 Fax: 49 (40) 3560-7275

Uniled Nalions DC- I, Suire 1140, New York, NY lOOl7 Tel: I (2 12) 963 6480 Fax: I (2 12) 963 0908

THE " GRANO PRINCE" CASE

4 April 2001 BY FACSIMILE

I have the honour to inform you that the Tribunal met today to consider the observations made by the Agent of Belize in his letter of today in the matter of Mr. Cot being chosen as Judge ad hoc by the Government of France.

The Tribunal considers that Mr. Cot fulfils the conditions required by the Statute of the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the Tribunal sees no objection to the choice of Mr. Cot as Judge ad hoc in the present case,

Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Mr. Alberto Penelas Agent of Belize c/o Fides Treuhandgesellschaft

Fax: 3010 060

ritakumar E. Chitty Registrar

Present contact address: Hotel Louis C. Jacob, Hamburg, Fax: 822 55 444


Completion of Documentation – Complément d’information

a) Letter from the Registrar to Mr Penelas Alvarez dated 22 March 2001

INT ERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FO R T H E L AW OF TH E SEA TRIBUNAL I NTERt"llA TlONAL DU DRO IT DE LA M .ER

Dear Mr. Penelas,

Am Intemation.lon Seegeriobtshof I, 22609 Hamburg. Oennany Tel: 49 (40) 356G-7270 Fax: 49 (40) 356G-7275

Unitt<! NatilHt$ DC- I, SuiLe 1140, New YorI:, NY 10017 Tel: 1(2 12) 963 6480 Fax: 1 (212) 963 0908

22 March 2001 BY FACSIMILE

Application for prompt release under artic le 292 of t he Unlled Nations Convention for the Law o f the Sea

I am in receipt of a copy of the Application submitted by facsimile on 21 March 2001 on behalf of Belize, under article 292 of the Convention.

I have 90ne trough the Application and 1 wish to communicate the following for appropriate action.

1. The Application does not expressly state that an agent has been appointed by Belize and does not communicate the address of the agent in Hamburg or Bertin, as required under article 56, paragraph 1, of the Rules.

2. The Application does not contain a certification that a copy of the Application and all supporting documentation has been delivered to the nag State, as required under article 110, paragraph 8, of the Rules.

3. The signature of the agent is not authenticated by the diplomatic representative of Belize in Germany or by a competent governmental authority, as required under article 54, paragraph 3, of the Rules.

4. The translation into English of Annex 13 to the Application is not certified as accurate, as required under article 64, paragraph 2, of the Rules.

5. Extracts of documents annexed to the Application are not legible. The following pages (with reference to the page numbers indicated on the copy sent by facsimile) shoutd be communicated in a legible form: 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 , 52 and 53.

Mr. Alberto Penelas Alvarez Abogados Maritimos y Asociados

Fax 0034 986 29 41 62

Yours sincerely

--t .I. I/J;;.~hi~

Registrar

DOCUMENTS 177

b) Letter from the Registrar to Mr Penelas Alvarez dated 30 March 2001, attached:- list of documents for completion of documentation

Sir,

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF TilE SEA TRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL DU DROIT DE LA MER

Am Imcrnationalm Seegerichtsbof I, 22609 Hamburg, Gcnnany T~I: 0 (40) 3560-7210 Fax: 49 (~O) 3S60-721S

United Nations DC- I, Suite 1140, New Yorlt, NY 10017 Tel: I (212) 963 64SO Fax: 1 (212)9630908

The " Grand Prince" Case

You will find attached a note conceming documents we would like 10 receive in connection to the Application for prompt release filed with the Tribunal on 21 March 2001.

Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration,

Mr. Alberto Penelas Alvarez Agent of Belize

Fax 0034 986 29 41 62

--t.. [. ritakumar E. Chitty

Registrar


THE " GRAND PRINCE" CASE

Com pletion of d ocume ntatio n

The Registry has gone through the documentation submitted and would appreciate receiving the following:

1. A copy of the proces-verbal of violation no. 4/00 of 26 December 2000 (referred to In the Order of the Court of First Instance of Saint Paul of 12 January 2001 , Annex 13 to the Application):

2. A copy of ' Proces-verbaux no. 09/2001 p .e .G. 'La Jonquille" of the Maritime Police (referred to in the Record of Arraignment from the office of the Prosecutor, Annex 8 to the Application).

DOCUMENTS 179

c) Letter from the Registrar to Mr Védrine dated 30 March 2001, attached: - list of documents for completion of documentation

INTERNATIONAL T RIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF TIl E SEA TRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL DU DRO IT DE LA M.ER

Excellency,

Am In!emationalen Secgericlnsbof I, 22609 HambwJ., Oemuony Tel ; 49 (40) 3560-7210 Fax: 49 (40) 3560-7215

United Nations DC.I, Suite 1140, New York, NY 10011 Tel: I (212) 963 6480 Fax: I (212) 963 0908

The " Grand Prince" Case

30 March 2001 BY FACSIMILE

You will find attached a note concerning documents we would like to receive in connection to the Application for prompt release filed with the Tribunal on 21 March 2001 .

Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

His Excellency Mr. H. V9drine Minister for Foreign Affaires of the Republic of France

Fax 0033-1-45516012

ritakumar E. Chitty Registrar

cc: Mr. Ronny Abraham, Director, Direction des Affalres juridiques Fax 0033-1-43175505


THE " GRAND PRINce" CASE

Completion of docymentation

The Regislry has gone through the documentation submitted and would appreciate receiving the following:

1. A copy of the proces-verbal of violation no. 4/00 of 26 December 2000 (referred to In the Order of Ihe Court of First Instance of Saint Paul of 12 January 2001, Annex 13 to the Application);

2. A copy of "Proces-verbaux no. 09/2001 P.C.G. 'La Jonquille'· of the Maritime Police (referred to in the Record of Arraignment from the office of the Prosecutor, Annex 8 to the Application).

DOCUMENTS 181

d) Lettre de M. Alabrune au Greffier en date du 30 mars 2001, avec en annexe :- procès-verbal d’infraction nº 04/00

Date : 30 mllra 2001

MINISTERE DES

AFFAIRES ETRANGERES

DIRECTION DES

AFFAIRES JURIDIQUES

L.e Dlrecteur-Adjolnt

nltphorle ; 01 4) 11 S3 00 Tl!lkopic ; 01 43 11 S5 05

EXPEDITEUR :

Monsieur F~ ALABRUNE

TELECOPIE

~ Nombre total"de'PllllfI'II' : 1O'/+-1"Jtlgc de

garde)

DESTINATAlRE ;

Moal itltr Grillbllllr t. CHJTTY Grdlitr TRIBUNAL l1O"£RNATIONAL DU DROIT DE LAMER IlAMBOURG

Far: 004940 35 60 n 15

OBJET : COMPLEl'o1.ENT AUX OBSERVATIONS DU GOUVERNEME.NT FRA.'iCAIS.

MESSAGE:

Monsieur Ie QrdfLCr,

Conune swle' VOIle fu. de e.joUf, je vous pOe de bien vouloir trouvet ci·joint de, documents dOni I. communication est soohail&; par Ie Tribunal.

Veuillu agr6er, Monsieur 1e Orcfficr, r~OII de rna eonsidmtion diJling~.


: "::1:;ll\.'''i"iMI:Mn: 11It 11 :11 1 \W I::; I 1 t>:od!.,',II"w!1~ 0.'3 , z.. • ..( '. r Pjk~ r< ."l,. .. F">,;"-· :.,'. . J ~~....., .. --- MAR.lNE NATIONALE


COMMANDEMENT MAIUTl.ME DE NOUVELE CALEDONI.E

FREGATE NIVOS£

PROCES VERBAl. D'INF&ACIION N"Q41OO NJVOSE

- L'an deux mille, le mlrdi Ui d6etmbrt,

"6

_ NOll!, soussignes Mite LANNE, capitaine de fn!galt. commandant la fregate de surveillance N1VOSE, Gillet DEPELLEY, "pitaine de cOf'iene. command,nt en ~ond de la fregat. do surveillance NIVOSE, Stq,hane 8A YON de NOYER. li .... tenant de vailSuu, commandant de l'l~oncf AS 565 SA PANTHER W6436.

v, . I _ La 101 du ler man ISI8 modifier. rtlative .. I'extrace de II ~he dans Its uux $QU1i

SO\l~aineui au juridiction tran..,also, ,'itendlflt IU IMge des COlts des remloires d'outre-mer, - I.a loi N" 66-400 du II juin 1.966 rnodiliec., liur l'eJteIcice de II pecht maritime el I'Uploilllion des produil$ de II meT dans 1es Imu J.ust rales et antarcliques frUlCflises et wn dtcret d"applieat.ion ~ 69-408 du 2S Ivril 1969: - L. 101 N· 7(KiSS du 16 Juillet 1976 reillive ill zone economique au larg' des lerritnires de la Ripubliqvc:; - LI lei N· 13-512 du S juillet 1913 moditiee relative au riiPmCl de \a saisie e! tompletlfll la liste des ,gents h.abilites a oxrnstater les lnlnctions dans Ie domaine des pkhes mlri time,; _ Le dead N"4-146 du 12 seplembre 1984 fiun! Its modalitts d',pplie&tion de I,\oi 8)·582 du SjuiJlet 19&3. - te dklet N· 78-144 du J fevrier 1971 porunt ~iJ.tiol\ d'une zone Cconomique u large des C6ltS des ItrJCS austr:ales r~$es;

elant en patrtluille de polke d~ p&:hu dll\$la zone iconomique des «lIes du terntoiro de II Rq,u.bliqul, en rupece au lUSt des il.1 Ker;u6len. tkTII lei TUfes A.u.st raln et Anlln:.liques flan~$C$, arborJ.n! Ie plviUnn de pOlice des piches, i la position GPS: I..AT. 47°44,3' SUD· LONO. 073"22' EST, Ie matdi 26 dic:em~ 2000 t. OS heutcs 11 E, corrnl ton. que Morrsieur Ramon FrUlCiKo PEREZ NOVO, lit i. RlBEJRA, Ie OS nelobrCl 19.57. de TIIlionalite uplgnolc, c:.apilune du navire de peche palangoer "GRAND PRINCE". d'lJne longueur de 39,61m, d'une 'trleur de l Orn, dun tlnnt d'U11 de 4,81'1\. dune jauge bJulc de 669 tOnneau)!', pr()pul~ pit un moltUr dinel de 4000 chevaux, bltlant plviUOII do BELlZ.E, partanl l'inditlt ir intemltional "V3un", enreg.istre sous It numelO 07972041. dliclar1! Ippanenir i II ~ompl!!.nie "PAlK commeTciaJ corpo .... tion· est en inITaC1ion pour ;

-Avoir san, autoritatinn piehi da,,., If. zone KonOnUque ex<;lu,ive des I1es Kerguelen, 500..1' ju.idiClion rr~M.

2 . -Ne pas Ivoir siSnalc son entree b zone icnoomique uctusive des nes Kerguelen et n'lvo,r ~ diclare detenir une .:lIine de loonlO"l' de poisson i.!IOn bnrd

, .•

DOCUMENTS 183

U6 Avons eonA_le cNonologiquemmt, til heures du fuseeu ECHO 011 qui ,uit:

• Le 26 dt«mbrc 2000, I; 081153, l'hCIicopIere tlu NIVQSE lu COUJS de u palrouille de w rveililuce n'lluilime detecte un kho r.dar • une position proche de LAT:47"41'SUD -LONG'73°44'E!ST ct l'iticnlitie conIIne navirc d~ p6clle.

- " 011158, Ie NIVOSli ttlut en pusjliUll LAT: 4?-H,)'SUD • LONG: 73"22'£5T, Ie comman4an! consllit 1 son tour, en passertllt. $\IT Ie rtdar de navigation, un ~ho" 16,3 Inilla ~nl. en position LAT:4P49'SUO· LONG 13°45'£5T. Au memt moment, l'hBieoplft't 'YAll'1l:9J I'otdrl! de rejoir.dre celIe posiliOl'l, idenlilie Ie navirt de pCthe du nom de -GRAND PRINCE", Set radan de navigation sont sioppes. Le comflWldant d'lirontf con'tale Ires dairement qll'un pk.hwr en tenue de trlv;Ul (clre de couleur orange, glllt5 de nWII.ltcntion) NT Ie poste dt picht lribord sectionne un cable de paiangre de couleur vute.

o A O9HOO, Ie NIVOSE prend contact JUf VHF 16 el donne I'ordre de stopper au GRAND I'IUNCE, l'heIicoptcrc br&l)dit simultancnleni Utvltlt sa pusetclle un paruleau 5Ur lelltltl lc lnut STOP est inscrit en un II:IO'~ lettrcs. Le GRAND PRlNCE rCduit ill'lmMillemenl ~ vitesse. Les interrogation, de rtllquele cle pavilion COI1\mCI1ocnt en Ul~ depujl Ie NIVOSE sur VHf eanall6 puis canal 12.

o A O9H03. Ie commandant d'ieronef CIHl~Ult que Ie penonml sur rarriere du GRANO PRlNCE rmlonte tine IiSnt.

o A 09t109. I'intcrlocuteur sur Ie GRA.."ID PRINCE De eomprmd pU lout et demande que I'on parle C30lJlgnol au plus lentement eft ang1ais. Lorsqu'oo.lui demande de o.OUI passer Ie Clpitainc il ripond ·mommlo. por hvor" pub nous dit que Ie capitoline DC parle pu ang!ais.

- A O9H\3, iI declll"e lV1)ir cinq tOMeS de poiuon i bord. I'tquipage eil oompo~ de 35 penoMtS, 10 ~~I'tt 2S chilicns.

• A 09H 17, Ie GRAND PRJNCE dil tit pas Ivoir declare son entlie dins I, zone etonomiqut exclusive des Des Kerguelen.

o A 09HI9, Ie COfI"ImIlIdmt d'ihoner lperlWOit unc r&nl~ de six boueel sur Ie lraven bibord du GRAND PRINCE pour 500 Ylrd •.

o A09H2I, Ie GRAND PR.lNCE cst visible depuis Ie NIVOSE, il lui tsl annonce sur VHF 12 rUlIention de Ie visiter, il lui cst delllllndt de ruscmbler son petSOMeI JW" "avam.

o A 09HlO, h: GRAND PRINCE di! avoi: quitul Ourb&l) Ie 2611 1/00, sa destiNlion prDbable est Willwi. B,y (Namibie). On lui rede.mnde de !'&ire ~iel" Its J3 penoMe5 sur ravAIlt, Ie c~pi ll.ine et Ie palron des pe-thes restlllt en plSSC(elte.

· A 09HJ S, tOUI Ie pcr$OMcI n'csi pIS encore rauembli, 21 pusonnes sont sur Ie pont principal i !'amere de II P<i>s~(en e el en ont prolite pour recuperer Ie cordage 5C>Clionne .. l'anivee de rh~IiCQpttre ct Ie lover dins un caisson sur 1'lrtRre do bilimenl.

o A 09H42, Ie GRAND PRJNCE esl i. 1,1 milies mariM du NIVOSE, I .. &foup" de six bou"c~ est visible. 1000 fud, sur hvanl du NIVOSE.

., () / ",/

P . ~


1I6 • A O9HO, Ie commandM~ d'aeronef note quelqutl IJlOUVerncnIi de personnel sur brriere du bltuu., en pll1iculicr, une pcrlOnne caiou1ee avec des vetementl ehluds qui entre dallS Ie batuu par Ie poi!e de plebe lliburd.

• A 09H53,28 pcnonnes IOn! rusemblees sur I'avant.

• A 10H07, les 3l membru d'~uipaae tont rwemblb sur I'IVaot, l'hCIicoptt-re pose sur Ie NIVOSE , IOH04 rlko\1c avec deux. commandos e11e ehd'de l't,quipe de visilc I M>n bordo Its wont hiiitreuiIJis. I OH10 sur IcGRANO PRlNCE.

• A I0H24, les premiers complts rcndus du chef de r6qulpe de vWte «mfmnent 1a pr'sence de )J perlOnna i I'.vant et deux en pusenne.. Sur I. ponl principal ct la plagt Ivant, iI reperc des anem de fond. des filets, de.! euicrs des Jiines de pali1ngrc neuva. II eonfll'me II presence d'une Ilgoc de pallllgrt fralchement coupCe Iovk derriere 1. puscn:Ue. Sur ,'amere, il note des ~am~ns et du leles d'appits. 11 y a des Itainu ft,tches coliertS dans Ie bac ,ltenMl a 1'.lellcl de remO{1tee de 10 PtJanire. Sur Ie toil de II plmuUe 11 a~it un gnmd nombre de boum. L'equipage eSL docile.

• De 10llJO l 101139,4 mernbces ae I'~uipe de visite embarqullllt dU\S rMlicoptere e\ sunt (rcullln IUr Ie GRAND PRINCE.

• A IOH45. Ie chef de r~uipe de visite penetre en plSwelle. Let tattes sont rangees. les ap~il' de navigation wnt 5topp6i, Ie capitaine et Ie patron de peche :se soume\tcn\ i la palpation de securite sans difficutt(i. 11 n'y a pu d'umc en pUSCfelie.

• De IOH50 .i. 11H04. 4 personna dont Ie commandant en sceoOO du NIVOSE eLnbas'qllent dll1S l'heIieopt!re puis sont tr~illies wr Ie GRAND PRlNCE.

• A IIHOO. Ie capitaine du GRAND P.RINCE.reconnait SA po~tion' 11nlmeur de la lEE de5 nes Kerguelen i LAT.: 47"46' SUD· LONG: 73-44' EST. II sian_Ie point ,ur \a carte <11 11 "Un d'Amsterdam awe iles Kerauelen",

• A J I H 10, oommence rUlYe5tigaLion del documents de la p&S5efelle. l.t commandant CfI second du NIVOSE constate la prer.Cflcc du point de llHOO ECHO signc par Ie apitllinc du GRAND PRJNCE. O'aptis Ii. paLente de n.l.viaation qui expire Ie 29 decembre 2000, Je GRAND PRINCE appartlenl t la PAlK c:ommCfCial eorponLioD J 1.5 A Regent street I PO BOX 1177 J BELIZE city 1 BELIZE, Le joumal de navigation .'LlITtle Ie 2J decemble 2000 i Ia position: LAT:41"40' SUD LONG: 1S-30' EST. Sur la lute d'~uip.&e, il y • 31 l'Ioms. Lc Clpill\lIe en a raye deux. II dil qll'ils sont panis en Vleanees depuis DlJR.DA.~ .

Le capitaine ell domicilii I: llibcira, 10 rue da Carballein. Sa carte profwioMelle porte Ie N°41S401167216.101. Le patron de piche esl Antonio SEVILLA LUSTRES. de naL)ona]itt! espagnole, ne i Ribeira \e 2'107/60, domicilii: Avercida Ferrol, 107 Ribeira. Sa licence de ptche pone Ie N<1840046761 1.031.

• A I tHH, I'; paLron des pit;hu fC:COMiit que It poil.5on pichC est du "RobaIo", ce qu'il traduit el'l analais par "Pallgonian tooth fish", c'st i dire en fran~s ·I~nc" .

A )

P."

DOCUMENTS 185

41' - De \21ilS , 14HSO. It NIVOSE part remonter Itl bOllCes reperU5" 09H\9 ~ 109H42. II est alors ala pofitiOD 47"48,4' SUD - O?)O 44,4' EST. La manoelZvre est rcnduc difficile par Ics conditions ~CorOIOgiqlles (vetil de 30 ftoeudl) . La Ilgnc est rcmontee piniblement ct U$SC': ,liors que qUltre bou«s swltmcnt 50nt i bordo L'unc d'elles de coulcur or.nge, marquee ·75 DYNOPLAST AS AUStIND MADE IN NORWAY". et pottant I. chilfrc S, esllrncr,~c par un mat rnetalHquc SlIT lequel IOnl anlcbees deux Iampes flubs cylindriquc$ orange, de marque ·CAVILA EL.ECTRONICA MODEL PULSAR. REF 21.OOS·, Au sommel: de cc mat, i! y • une anteMe toucl noire montee sur un soclc en plastiquc gris lout iequel ic clUare ) HI inscril en jaune. W troll IUITes bouees sont roses avec un IMeau bleu ct portent rinscription • A4 THE ORJGINAL POLYFORM MADE IN NORWAY·, Uoe dtuxiemt: Itn\ative permct de remonltr outre les deux demieru bou~ I.lligne de plus d'un kilometre, puis une &ntfe de fond tt en6n unt pilarwe qui esl balie • bold jusqu'lu premien Iwnec;oos IVilll d'etre volontairement coupe.. Lu deux demiCre5 boutu sont or&Zlgu et portent Ttnwiption • AS POL '{FORM M6001 ALESUND MADE IN NORWAY",

• A 12H39, commence: I'in"'e$tigation de sCr;\lti~ en pUlefeUe, Depuls I'un des deux OfdinatCOJn dt 1a passere.!le, on imptimc:: une li11e de numaos de tllephone de bitirrrenlS et de

~ stations i terre donI Crozet el Kerguelen, Parmi Ie matmel de radio et de navigation, on nOle un mlteur reccpteur MF/HF, et un ru· ttlephonc INMARSAT qui lOMeta i plusieuTs reprises IU cours. de la viJite. II y lun pOSit de rtpOl pour douzc nash dont trois inoc:cupn.

- A 13H02, Ie commandant en second du NIVOSE aecom~gne du capililine se rendenl dins I'usine. Una rorte odNr de poisson , 'en de&lic. Sur bibord du local sonl disposees, en dcux biota, environ 200 cagettes d'applu prepares, accrocllb sur dCIIwn~ns: 'one Iiane. Le plan de Ira .... il pour I. mise "J'eau des palangru n'a pas etc rineel, iI Ut encore joncl\l! d'ka,illcl, Sur II partie tribord de ruslnc, de ravant vetl Tanie1c, on trouve; A proximitt immediate du poSt. de remontie de la palVl&U, un bac conltnani 16 Icgines fj;aiches endues. les joues de certaines onl Cle relir6Bs. Le capitaine reconNit la fflicheur da ce po/uon en Ie tOUt han! d .... anl la ~ril.

Sur Ie plan de tnr."all de dtcoupe, ItS oUlils sonl eneore plein de viscCre$, III table n'est pu rincee, on y Irou" r du bouts de nlgcoires. Ie 101 est jonche de sans fra.is cl dc viscerci. En contrebu du plan de travail un bae com:ient URe.au brunitte. Sur Ie cOle, un autre b,e eontient dCI tilelS de pois.son fr.tjs. Un hac de ~e a1imenlt par un tuy.u d'oU coule de rc.u CI'1 continu contitnt unc diuine de poissons r,ail ~ queue III tete en COUTS de lavale. Sur Ie bard du bac., il 'I .. troi6 pitces de pois.an rrail. Le capitiine ooUI dit que lout ce poiPOn. h.~ pecht auj01Jrd'hul. Contre I, p1.10i tribord de l'Uline, air un tapis roullJ\t on comple une douzaine de poiSSOM frail uns queue iii Iile emballe. dr.ns dn NCS pt.stiquea. P'~IS a descendre dans Its I\Innel, de cona:tlation. L'inveiligltion Ie pourruit vcrs Ie local des tunnels de congelation. Au passage on remarque qUltre anc:res de rond.

- A 11H20, devant I" lIOis tuMdl de conatlalion,. Ie commandant en second du NIVQSE comple une vinalaine de urtons: man'Ons sur des itlgllres. A I1nWieur, dillS des pJutiques it y II des pieces de poiason ou des fileu, rrais d'apparenc:e, dont J.temperlturc ","e entre +1 6°C pour 1C5 pieces et -O.]"C pour les filet". Le u.lnne! de cong~lIiOli du milieu cst vide, II pone en est olNtr1e. Les dt\lx IUMC]S qui l'cncadrCflI cont;erment environ 54 eilftOns de pois5Qn til pieces ou en file,,; ctlUines arone. pieces sont dans des 5.lc:! de}oilc b4ncs. Les temperatures relevecs i CIJ:\II i\U( les pi~ d .... tunnel; rr du loetJ (biifrd do bltimenl) varienl en::: -I"e et -12"C sdon Ie! pieces.

' ,05


5" Cel1el prises dans Ie tunnel ajtut i rem6c d\l local indiqlJeDC du valew. ~e -0,1-(. Le ~P;\line DOU5 dil qlle la 1tm~ralure. IITlbillllc normlle de eea tunndJ CSl de ---<4D-c. Toulefoi, I. tempb1.ture prist pat nos lOins enrcgiure -9"C.

- A IlH45, k Qpitaine noul dit qut CIt pois$Ofl • et' picM cellt null. 11 precise que chaquc {untie! contient environ Unt tOM' troil de poisson. DinS ce local on rdrouve un petit wier.i. spiral, de coulcur rose: All' lequel SClDI IWtgistritt les qlWltilb de poi$5Oft clwJ,m dlllS les .aut" eongdies tt leur r~ition.

• A J3H50, debut' rUIVe.uiptloa dam; lei SOUles congeiea.. Des cartons vides dipliiJ OCQlpalt environ Its dtu.'lt tien de It premia-e sew!e. On 'J trauve dcs Mora dl! lanaO\l~es tI l'alimentWon dc requlpage.. Sur Ie lIpil roulant qu~ depuiJ I. porte de Ia soute d6ccnd cbru 1 .. deuxiemc lOute CII eonlrcbu. Ie eommandlllt En SCl»nd du NtvOSE coMate la pri:sc:nce de 20 NICS de toile blanu contenant dCllqines dont la tem¢tllure cnn:giStfCe est de -I.J"C. Le thermometre de la sOUle \Ddlquc unc lempmlUrt ambianle de ·12·C. De PIn et d'autre de ce lapis roulanl, dans b. dtullibnt soute, plus VUle, un important volUlne Ik (InOllS d'appiu IXInBoo est cmllst lOllS del fil clS.. Au ru~ de Il SOUle, t(llIIre I, pltoi Ilu i

. rail lOUIe Ia JUgalr du bilimet\t (klil cnviron dj ~ mtlles), des canons d des sacs de legincs IOnl tnlreposes lUI" unc l.auteur de dew. metres el Wit laraeur d'un mtlrl.. Ce vo!unte cotTes.poad enviroll i. 111- de celie SO\ItI doni. I. capacile, 5tIon Ie .-tron de pWie. Cit de 120 10I\III!:l. Le convnarub.ilt tll letOnd du NIVOse Mluc done • quiJIZII: IOMH }c poiuon eon,de dGIIt la ltmpHature ~1~ i cuur est de -lS"C. La tem~f1Ilure ambiUlte de Il50Ule est mesurit • ·21"'C. A ce moment Ia q'JlIItite IOIa/e de poiuon dettrlu , bord peul ilre u timee. Ullc...-ingWne de lOMe •. En rcmolllanl de II lOute. on connlll un anplaectnenl POW" dill: baUtriu de bou« doni Kpl sonl en place.

• Veri loIHL O, 1~IJVe$ti&ation dt "'rito dans 115 ehambres du clpiLlint: c\ du patron de pecht: pennettra dt mdtre. Jour]. position de deux biliws inscrite i t. main aUf un papier ainsi que les modes d'emploi de quelques appareib en puserdle. dont I'ordinattu( de n,yiplion, un Sloek de Tte-lbin "BUC'E ENTR£POTS SA" tt WIt fiche JUf Ie tOIIfl dc I. 1~¥Ine. n n'y & pu d'&rmes.

• A 1<lIUS, on Cdite depuiJ rordinaleur de II paucreIIe un uhier de pecM d&te du O&/09lOO.u 0711<WO.

• A Im20, SUI" Ie polll principe!. Ie c.omnw!daa.t en secoad du NIVOSE r~e unc bou6t orange numi:rotc. -i " tet un mil er. un dispellrut pour recevoir deux flash. A prolcimi te. il y I ~nq bouhs roses non &rcc", deux d'~tfe tiles portent la marque "POI..YFORM N600 1 AWUNO MADE. IN NORWA V' et '" sur II p&nit blcue supbi~ . Sur bibord, il y a sill: Iller" de fond.

• A ISH49, lUI" Ie tcit dc la p&mrelle, Ie eommlndant en sec:ood du NIVQSE eompt~ huil boufts OfItl&CS tur bibord. Qualre d'entre elIes tollt i!:qt.Jipifl d'uD dj5poJilifpour r«evoir une blilcric (bou~ nlU'llbot0e5 S, 4, J , 2). La qullIe auuu ~ sont ~pm; d'un dispouti pour rc«voir des fluhs lu.mineux (numtro. 1. 1, et 6 plus UIIe $&IIJ flUMO); pmIIi us demiern. Ies boutes 1, J. ct 6 ponw Fwcriptioll "1S DYNOPLAST AS ALESUND MADE IN NORWAY. Sur tribon! du toit de II passerdle, UtIt bouic Olanp port. nt b.lettn C est .t moiti~ dqontlic et componc u~_,.~.~ un Ii1spositi r pouf ru;evoIr banerie et flull, cnlin on y~oml\e 19 bouics roses simiJ~ l celles trouvees 5Uf Ie pont.:,

~.~- - - ,."

DOCUMENTS 187

"6 • A 16HlO, i Ia dcmandt: du colTllT\ll'\dant en second du NIVOSE.le ptl10n de ~c montre Ie paste de rcpos pour 10 1II1cnnes fouet dw rtt.h&ppee machine, Sept IOnl en place et ponenl In numl!rol: 1,2, 4. 6, I, II, 12. Ces antennes ont deli carac:lmstiqutslimilairu i ctllc, de l'lntcl\IIII prnentc $\If JI. boul!es repkMe.

Compte ten\! dtS divtl'l C!bnCIIU d-dessus rapportis, eoCISWons qu'i! '1 a bien infraction i la ri&Jemenhlion fnny&ise sur Ia pecht maritime dans Ia zone konomique exclusive des llts Kerguelen.

Lc 16 dicembre lOOO i 2Oheurea. pour f&jrc suite lUX COIU\&lIlUw rappocUts ci-dCSSUl, i Ja dunandc du directeur dipartemenlai des iKaires marititntt de 1.& Riunion, Itt 'linin! sdon les ordru dll commandanl de I. marine i 1.& RNnioll, Ie IIlvirl! de pidIe palan&ricr ·OkANO PRINCE" est d&oo.d v~ Ie Pon du Oillets (La. bunion). Notifi~lion de cc derOUICQlen! a tit port~c sur Ie IIOUvUU journal de navi,'lion ouvert retroaclivemenl ... ttl efTet i ,. date do 2<1 d6cembre pit Ie capilaine.

Un ptoces.-verbal d'apptihension est drew! Ie 26 decembrc 2000. Notification il tiC failt i . 20heuru E IU c:apitaine cIu "GRAND PRINCE", qui I ~gnc\ 'f)fClltl<iuction par Ie patton de

peche. Copie en est runi!e au Clpilail1ll du -oRA1-lD PIUNCE". l.cs ..:.elln oot tIe IPPOseS en II prmnee eOflSUnte dll c:&pitainc du "GRA,.II:D PIUNCE".

Le c'pilaillf: de frqall! M~ LANNE,

J:=' Le lieuteTll.tlt de vai_ StCphanc SAYON de NOYEA

eomma.nd.u1t litbofd de I"M1lcoptire AS 56:5 SAPANTHER ~6ot}6


- procès-verbal de synthèse de la Gendarmerie maritime

•

•

PROCEDURE O'ENQUUE PRELlMINAIRt

PROCES-VERBAL DE SYNTHESE

lA: 26 ~Im: 2000, I11I\II ~ Iv!a!s JIlt Ie PC optratloalik II IIlIliac: lIIriOlll!e • 11 RiuniOD qU'lIIIlYvire" pkhe baltInI ptVilloa oX lWIiZl: toCIIIM! "Orand 1'nDcc' I ttt.SII)riI &!aDS .. acne 6;orQnIquc ~~ nes de Kereutlen ~ lei IaTq IIIStI'1la d &IiIaR:6q_ f~1tS pIr I_ frtpte 4t tllrlt'Jb:lce "Niy~' de Ia mume llllionalt: eo mission .. surwiUance des pichH "'" c.Ifte ZOfIt.

Ce palqritr til en #tioa de pa:he. WIll IUCOrisation, • e:;vU0II 55 CIUIIques dIN: 11 zone konornique;. D~ put. U 0" paalis:Wt SClII mlltc i5ans I, lIlaC 6collOmic;,ue iii Ie IDIIMp lie poi$$Oll ditcnu • bon! (11,s IOI11\C1 de IilinesJIII c:entte de transmlWol\I des l'i\es de Kcr;u:!=.

L'orlh ck dUoutmenl cst IIOtifie 26 dl!eembre lODO' 20 Ileum 00 <l? IU capilline du 'QnM PriAcc".

I.e 3 janvic:J 2001, monsicuJ LAUQUE, subaitut prta: 1& prot'.ImII" de II Rq,ubliquc: pits Ie uibu:ul 4r p-anQe ioswlcc de SalDI • Denis 1$1 intOTlM del fallS. NOIII hvisans qtl'i! e:d!It i. l'erK:OIItrc de. Ramoa fnneiw PEREZ NOVO, capiW)ll dlllllYirI, du __ fainelt;:m.= qt1'U • eomEIIiI .. dBitI de pidIL D DOllS cItmmde cII111i llipkr ram ..... C[IIIi du ptl.qne d de proc:6dc:r' fellqllll .. l.I 'j~ 2001,' I hcIIrU 00, mDrIIiew Ie IIIZstiIl4 1$1 rMc lie r.mve. du IYvlTe. U Ie rm! l bo:lI len du dtbul des invesUptions d IlO\I.S bljJ.5e sWi de: ' ....... U pol!~ de Nr tI des froIItitru. lei JaVic.es 5IIIl1Iirts et fadmiltlstnlxln oks douI:a SOIlI ,¥isis Ie 8 jlllvlft 2001.

1..& nav!re aocoJlc'l'M RNliun It IIIlldl9 j!llVim 2001 .10 Ileum IS (Della).

LeJ mnitaim de octn: lllliti q,ui IJCIUI OIlt xcond! dins 1101 OP':atiOIU IOnl c\ttl DOIJIinati'"Cme!'J dIllS It pteddurc POW" ebIc;a des ICIU ~'ilJ On! '"-ODIplii. Nous lVOOS ~u Ie CObtOUJS d'un tendmnc de 11 bripde 1\lIIIiquc de 1& ~e nationalt de Port. Des interprttes e~ WlfUt esp&&1lOlt, UI\ iMomIllkieo n UIl Jabonloire photo om tit ItqulJ 1\11" autoriMtion du pmjWt.

DOCUMENTS 189

PCG JONQUlJ..U . ... u ..... ~ .. , ... , ..

-------------- -----------------------------------------_._---Urle visite est efflCtuee t bord i. partir de 10 hii!ures 30 tEl. Au COIUS de <:elle,.(;j Ie capi\aine PEREZ NOVO Ramon Franci.KO reconnal1 Eire !UN I. zone eeonomique Franf&ise • I. ~jtion 47· 46' Sud et 073" 44' Est DlUIs se5 cale~ II est trouvt 1:5 tOMe~ de .l~gine congeloi!e ct dafI~ lcs tulllleli de cODlitoi!latinn 2,S lonnes de J~8Jne n-aichc. Dam l'\l$ine II est constl1~ ck$ lelutes fniches alrui que des a,ppiU accroehl!s $!.If des bame~. Le "Nivose" ~onte entre 12 hcllUs 15 (E) CI 14 helltts SO (E) its baum ~ ptccedemmerot pal l'htJicopttre.

Les proces-verbaux d'ap~hension OS/2000, 0612000 ct 0712000 ftNivnse" sont notifies au eapilaine du Orand Prince 1\ 20 heute! 00 (E). Une capie lui est remise.

Le prods verbal d'infractinn 04J2000 "Nivose" est ctabli pat Ie commandant, Ie. eommandant en second tt Ie commaodant d-Kronef du -r-.Iivose".

Un exemplain: de CIS proces-verbaux est n:mis t monsieur Ie ditec\eur departcmenal el fCgiunal des liffai res maritimes de I. Rtunion.

Le 5 janvier 2001, t nouc demande,Ie ehefdu district ncus ecrtifie que Ie "Orand Prince" n'8 pas signalc SOD entree dins zone konomJque des KeliUclc:n ni In quMrllc de poisson. d!terlue :i. $On bord (Pitce n- 2$>-

Le 8 janvie: 2001, un milialre de norre uniU!. cst hClirreuillc .. bord du "Nivose:." .. la mer· II procede lUX lWditiol1l de :

Capitai-ne de (relate ~~~~~~~~~~~a~~u~-~~~~~~~~~i~ d'infrac:.tioll 0412000 eaSKncs video, cinq i un grappm et Jigne de palan;re avec

Capi\.aine de co~tte DEPELLEY GiUes, c:.ommandanl en sec:.ond (Plkc pOI L~). 11 a procede lUX c:onmtatiol1l sur le"Gnt\d prince:." Ie 26 dccembre 2000.

Lieutenant de VDlsseau SA YON DE NOYER Stiphane, commandant l'a6ronef embarqu.! ~ 1t...l.1). II a eonstate l'a.c:tioD de pb:ho du "Orand pillCe" Ie 26 dccembre 2000 ainsi que la presence de boum it. proximiU! du navire.

De leW'S auditions et du proch vabal d'infiaction. 0412000 '"Nivose~ iI res..son les elhuents probanusuivanta :

- Le 26 dCcembre 2000, 08 heures 53 (E). Ie Davire "Gland Prince" ~ U'Quve .. la position 47· 47' Sud et 073° 44' Est, scit :55 MUtique.s it. I'inttrieur de la Z.8 .E. de Kel ,uiieo. Cc navire n'a pas sianalt! Stln entree dans II zone ni Ie tonnaae de poissons delalu5 it. boni. 1\ eSt en action de p&:he "' mettlrlt i. I'eali une pallD1f:Hl. Lt c:ommll!1d&nt de l'hCllcoptbe c:onnale qu'un ~ seetionnc: uno pa1anll'e de coul= vene sur Ie paste de p4che tribord el que Ie per50M~1 sur I'arrib'e dli "GPnd Pnnee" remonte une lip. A 9 hCUIe5 19 (E). il constate la pre.~enee de six bou6e5 ;,Ia mer, sur Ie travers bjbord t:500 yards, SOil 450 mo!:tres mviro.o .

• Le navlre obtemphe rap!demmt .. l'injonc:tion de stopJ)ll!r et l '~uipe de visite monle a bard i. partir de 10 beurtl 30 (E). I.e C.lpitlio.e rteonnait $e trouvu dan,l. zont ~COl1omiCJ.ue dss ilcs de Kergucl!n en ponanl sa poJition sur la carte 4711 du bard. Le journal de nlvipuon nOesl plus mnpH depuis Ie 23 dettmbre 2000. n eft corutali la prtsenu d'app!t.~ dtcOD,elc!s p!!!p.a.r61 ~ur hamcyoru, dc ICginu fraichca; entim •• en cours de ptiptntion et en COUTS de eonac!i.ltion Ibn!; I~s tunnels.


IJJ:JVUAI(MJ!.IUL MAAI I I MI:. PeG l ONgVILLE

. " ......... Pil,. N" I • FtuiJlet N" J

• I.e "Nivose" ri!cuptre. II mer Ie matmieJ de picht n=o're par l'htlieoptbe .. pI'Ol(imite du -GTw!d prinee~ . II s'agit d'une marque de patbe portantl~pthm "5" avee fampe d ,!lIlio, bout, lIntIe de fond el pallDlt'e .vec h~OM, ee materiel est similaire i telui tn'llM .! bord du -Orand }>rinee".

Le 9 janvier 2001, nous proo6dons .. une 6tude c:omparathle entre la marquc de pkhe t!ScUta n· D ponantl'lnscriptiDn "S· rdev~ par le "Nivou- et 1a marque ~ pkhe portant l'inseripliM -4" Itouvie .. bon1 d1.l -Grand l"rUIc.e", NOU$ (GMt'tons ai!ISi TR£NTE fT UN peinu de ,imllitUdcs qui cablWenl sans aucun dllUle poPiblc que II marque de ~he "S" ~partient bien au "Grand Plince", L'anere de: fond (See!!gs n;:J et I, IiGne de Pllanpe (!;el\' r 9) sonl 'glle.ment ,imilaires IU materiel d~nu .. du "Grand prince" t'Pi .. 1 JZm¢.s·ycrbaJ dt companl$ons) et (Pike n- \6 prooh-vtdal d'jn1lgljaatjonl,

A 15 heuces 00. I\OUI fl"OCot!dons .. 1'll1Idition de SEVILLA LUSTRES Antonio, eapitolilli<" de ptchc:. II dklarc que Ie Gta:'Id Prinee' tit ~nt1t pour Picher dIrI.I 1a ZEE dan. Ie t.Oumu de Ja nwI du 25 au 26 d6cembre 2000. Yen 7 heures IS, Ie 26 dl!c:embn 2000 ii, donne J'Oflh de filer une paJaJ\ift. Au moment ou l'hilic.oplere e&t arrivi, ill donni l'onire • un marin de c:oupcr Sl% Ie poSle tribord Ie bout de retenue do 1& pallllpc. U n::coMalt que Ie matericl de ptd1c TelllOl'lte pM Je "NivDn" appurticnt bieo IU "Grand Pri~w CPlke 0° Ut

Le 10 janviCl' 2001,l'infonnatieien requis DOU5 informe que: Ics nerocn des eame\.S de pOche de.~ ordinatcun ont 'I' lupprimt5. Cc:pel)danl il U'Ouve un fichier du 6 avri l 2000 m~ntiDnnanl des JlOlitions dan. La zone teooomique des ues de KCTSuilen. II tro\l~ t!aale.menl un fichier ~ It telex relltan1 des faib du )0 aoOI au 25 octobre 2000, I'IOt&mmtnt un (ax conc:tmant l'I\$Sl~taOce dans Ie sauvtlt.j;e de "l'Amur" ainsi que diven doC'ummu !piC« nO 22).

A 19 ht~ 00: 001.1$ proeedOtlS.Ia Aide des c!oc\llTlellll offide!. du "Chnd Prineew ~ 28. mUN nO IQ" 25).

En conclusion, iI resson des c.omtatltiont effoctuCes pi!' I. "Nivose" et da notre enquCt:: que Ie · Orand Prince" ~h en Ktion do pkhe i l'intirieur de II ZoOM Cconomiq~ dtl iles de Kellutien dans Ie nord-en .. j5 naUliques de 1a limite btCrieure. Do'. pas sJllJIIlt son entree to ZOnCI fconomiquc ni It tDnruIi:e de poi~JOn dttenU".on bordo

Dc I'enqut!e effect\.u!e,11 rcslOft que les fail.'! commls par PEREZ NOVO Runon Fnl..''lCiSl;o coNtiluent aes deliu pour IVOlr :

• Dans I. lOlIC ~nomiqlle exciU$ive deJ e6te1 du tenitoire dt la RApubUque en I'e~ au larae des Uts de K.criuCJen danl les te~1 australu elanmetiques F~5I!.S. ~t capita.Jne du "GTa/Id Prince", 1II11ire blnant ~VilloD de Beliu. omil de dklllftt II ~ e1 ill quantitt de Dkhe IU chef du distnC1 de Ke:rPlttI, [)flits prt!vus et ri!primtJ pIX I'artlde 1 et" de la Lei 66-400 du 1&.06.1966 modi1it par la 101 97-1051 du 1&.11.97 et 1'lJ1ielo 2 t\ 4 de 111(11). 5&2 du 05,07.19&3.

DOCUMENTS 191

G£NDARNERlE MARITIME PCG JO/llQUIIJ..E

P.V 912001 PUc, N- 1 • F~~jJJlll tv" 4

• Dans II zone eeonomique exclusive des e6tes du teniloin: de 11 RJpubliqut en I' espeee au lmac dc. 1It. de Kef~len daJl,f Ics terre. wstralcs et anwctiques flVl~lU. ftant capitllne du "Qnnd Princ:1~, nllvire battant pavilion dt ~Ii.ze, tvoir putiq\llli I. p&.he 1M' .voir .,bunu au prUlable l'autoriAtion prtV'l.lit par 1.101. btlit pr1:¥U e! ltfIrim6 pat ItS imcla I e! 2 du ler mvs 1931 mod.lllte par I. Loi 96-609 du OS juillet 1996, ArUcle 2, 4, 10 de Ia Loi 66-400 du 1&.06.1966 modiflM par Il.lai 91· IOSI dll 11.11 .91. Atliele 2 et 4 de I. lei 1)·512 du Os.o7.191),

1.Q 11 janvier 2000, PEREZ NOVO Ramon f rJllcisco esI pr1!5eD~ devln! Ie ptOCUI't\It de la Republique a Saint Denis.

Nous ""-lsons parvenu- direetemCllt Ia prCseDtc: proddure eoDStitu6e en double cxcmpla.i ra toll que Ie detail fli\U'e IU bordtrcl11 d'tnvol, lCCompagnee des pi«:c:s 1 eonvicli on~ .

Fail ct clOllle Port, Ie 11 jUlVict 2001 .


Responses to questions from the Tribunal – Réponses aux questions du Tribunal

a) List of questions of 5 April 2001

DOCUMENTS 193

2

To France

8. Is it possible for the Government of France 10 throw some more light on the notion of "provisional execution" of the confiscation?

9. The decision to confiscate Grand Prince was adopted 9 days after the confirmation of its seizure and the determination of a bond for its release. What was the reason for the French authorities in the Reunion for changing their previous practice concerning the treatment of foreign vessels violating French rules on the exclusive economic zone?


b) Réponses de la France aux questions posées par le Tribunal en date du 6 avril 2001

Reponscs aux qu estions posees par Ie Tribunal

La position adoptee par la France en ce qui conceme la com¢tence et la recevabilit«!, 51 elle etait retcnue par Ie Tribunal, aumit pour efret de pticiser davantage les conditions de recours a la procedure de I'article 292 de la Convention. L 'objet et Ie but de cette disposi tion n'en semient nullement affectCs. En eITet, si Ie but et l'objet de I'article 292 semt bien de pcnnettrc une prompte mainlevee d'lmmobilisation , la suite que Ie Tribunal pcut donner Ii. une demande de mainle\'«!e est toujours subordonnee Ii. :

a) I'appreciation du bien,ronde de I'alh!gation de violation de la Con\'ention; b) ['appreciation du caractere raisonnable de la caution, lorsque cette allegation parait bien

fondee.

Ripons~ Ii /a questiolf ,,°1

En aucun cas la Cour d'appcl ne pcut decider de la mainlevce de I'immobilisation du navire des Ie d«!p6t d'une caution. L'immobilisation a en efret un cnractcre provisoire et cesse de produire elfet des qu'une decision a tte rendue sur Ie fone!.

En revanche, la Cour d'appel qui examine II nou"eau la cause comme I'a fai t Ie Tribunal correctionnel, poumtit dttider qu'il n')' a pas lieu de prononttr la confiscation du navire et Ie rcstituer a son proprittaire.

La France, en ee qui 18 eoneemc. ignore quel etai t Ie proprietllire effectif du navirc "Grand Prinee"au moment oil il a etc arrnisonnc.

Elle ne pcut que reg.reuer que les Expens cites par Ie requenmt n'aient pas donnes de renseig.ncmenlS a ce sujeL

Elle pcut seulement faire etat des constatations suivantes :

La "Paik Commercial Corp.", presenu!e eomme ttanl proprittaire du navire. a tte fondee Ie ler janvier 2000 Ii Belize. Le 21 mars 2000. celie societe a achetc Ie navire fa la "Reardon Commercial Corp.". Celte demicre societc a elle-meme etc fondee a Btlize Ie 14 mai 1999. Ces socii!tcs ont toutes dcU.IC leur siege social a la meme adresse : 35 A Regent Street, lle1ize-Cit)'.

DOCUMENTS 195

Repons~ Ii In qllestion n04

La confiscation estla main-mise de l'Etat sur un obj~.

L 'article 131.21 du Code Penal dispose que "Ia chose confisquCe est, sauf disposition particuliere prevoyant sa destruction ou son auribution, devolue Ii I'Eta!."

L'exCcution provisoire a pour objet de rendre eXCcutoire une decision de justice en dipit de I'exercice d'une voie de recours.

En m!lliere penale, Ie principe est que I'appel suspend I'execution de la peine prononcCe par Ie Tribunal correctionnel.

II n'en est ditreremment que lorsque la loi pre\'oit que lejuge peut assor1ir sa decision de I'execution provisoire. Tel est Ie cas de la confiscation du bien qui a servi a commet!re I' infraction qui pe:ut, selon I'article 471 du Code de procedure penule ctre declade executoire par provision.

Repons~ Ii la question n"9

Les autontes fram,aises n'ont pas change leur pratique. Elles ont simplement pris en consideration les par1icularites de I'espke. Lorsque Ie Capitaine du Grand Prince a etc! interroge Ie 9 janvier par la gendarmerie, i1 a dCclare qu'il avait appareille de Durban Ie 2 ou 3 decembre 2000 et qu'il etait dans la zone economique franij:aise "en commun accord avec Ie eapitaine de peche pour la raison suivante : c'est Wl endroit ou il y a du poisson ... " (Proces \'erbal d' interroglltion, piece jointe).

II n'y avait done aucune raison d'attendre davantage avant de SOWlleltre les faits reconnus par Ie Capitaine au Tribunal cOITCetionncl.

II cst vraisemblablc que si des investigations supplementaires avaient du ctre mcnees, il auralt ete decide! d'ouvrir une information. Tel n'a pas ctc Ie cas en l'es¢ce.

Fait it Hambourg Ie 6 avril 2001

._-F.ALABRum;

Agent du Gouvemement de la Republique f~se


c) Reply of Belize to questions posed by the Tribunal dated 6 April 2001


Reply to questions posed by the Tribunal

6 April 2001

To question n. 1

What effect would the French position with regard to Jurisdiction and admissibility have on the object and purpose of article 292 of the Conventioo ?

As mentioned yesterday, this an independent proceeding of those carried out by the domestic courts. Both run in paratell .

As we also indicated , If the theory sustained by France prevails, then every State could avoid prompt release of vessels and crews Just by carrying out a speedy proceeding for prompt confiscation Of' pro~1 imprisonment , and deciding provisional execution of the decision.

Through this way, invoking domestic Laws, would be evaded the requirement slated under article 73.2 of the Convention. This would affect not only vessels but also crews, which could be promptly imprisoned .

Which is the purpose and objective of art. 292 01 the Convention?

To deal with matters were it is alleged that in whatever way a vessel is detained by a State without the possIbility of being released upon the posting of a reasonable bond

To end with, I will recall that as was held by this Tribunal In the Monte Confurco case , paragraph 70 of the Judgement, the release of prompt detention can be subject only to a reasonable bond.

To question n. 2

Could the confiscation of Grand Prince be overtumed by the Court 01 Appeal?

II this would be so, could the Court of Appeal decide release 01 the vessels upon payment of the bond.

It is obvious that the Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court in Paris, could perfectly overturn the said decision. There are arguments to defend that confiscation Is not a propoftional sanction in relation with the offence comlned. Evidence thereof if the amount of the line impossed to the Captain of 200,000 FF , wnich is in a low level in comparison with other cases before the local courts.

DOCUMENTS 197

But the most important thing Is thaI even In case the said decision is overturned the Court of Appeal, this Court Will not pronounce nothing regarding release upon a bond or other security, as It is not the subject matter of the appeal. We would still have to await until the Supreme Court pronounced a final and firm doclslon.

To qoostlon n. 3

Regarding ownership of Grand Prince.

It seems that some confusion as 10 the ownership of the vessel has atised 'rom a reference in the CertHJcates of Class , enclOsed as exhibh 17 of the application. to Noyean as shipownlng company.

The current shipowner bought the vassel on the 2'f1 March 2.000, as It Is shown by the contract of sale , duly notarized and apostilled enclosed as exhibit 2 of our application.

Document number 3 of the application evidences that on the 16 October 2.000 the shipowner of Grand Prince was Paik Commercial Corp.

This ownership has also been confirmed by the Intenatiooal Merchant Marine Registry of Belile In its letter dated 30 march 2001. which was ordered following indications of the Registrar and whCh is part of the file .

The certificate further states that despite the expiration of the provisional patent of navigation is still registered In Belize, being documents related to Status of the vessel , such as the final patent of navigation and ship station licence of the vessel, pending of being processed by the Registry .

The certificate of class which seems to create the confusion . as you can see, was Issued on the 23 June 1.999, and as it Is staled in the same document it expires in a term of five years.

Therefore it Is evident lhal the document was issued when the ownership corresponded to Noycan. previouslv to the purchase of the vessel by the current owner, Paik Commercial.

Note also that the only survey due on January 2000 were carried out in November 1999 by the previous owner of the vessel .

That's the simple reason why Paik Commercial does not yel appear in the dasslflcation society documents. as they have not had the necessity to make any arrangement for the lime being regarding the classification certifICates.

Notwithstanding, Mr. President, whether the Tnbunal wishes uS to provide any further evidence as regards to ownership, we will be more than happy 10 do that.


To question n. 4

What are the legal meaning and effects of the word confiscation In french law.

It Is obvious that confiscation supposes, In plinciple, the attachment of lhe goods by the confiscating State. As to its effects , if article 73.2 of the Convention did not exist them the Inmediate eHeet would be the detention of the vessel and its exproplalion by the detaining State. However, as lar as article 73.2 Is applicable, which I leel Is not under discussion, then the vessel must be promptly released against a reasonable bond, and this requirement , as held by the Tribunal cannot be sujecled to any domestic laws or regulations, but only to the posting of a reasonable bond.

D&spite what we have expossed , following the request of the Trbmal. we must insist that we are not questioning in this proceeding the legality of those measures, but only that related to prompt release, which cannot be avoided by alleging domestic laws or procedlngs.

As conclusloo, France breached the convention by first fIXing a totally unreasonable bond. and moreover, by, only one week thereafter , Impeding by a p!"ompt confiscation proceeding combined with provisional execution, any possibility of release.

Questions 5, 6 and 7 have been answered with the occasion of Belize statements during the morinlng of the 6" April 2001

Alberto ene S Alvarez As Agent I Belize

DOCUMENTS 199

Additional documents submitted before the closure of the written proceedingsDocuments additionnels soumis avant la clôture de la procédure écrite

Submitted by Belize

a) Article 55 de la Constitution française


b) Reply to the Observations of the French Government, attached:- acte d’appel of 31 January 2001 (in French) (not reproduced)

INTERNAJ10NALTRIBUNALFOR THE LAW OF THE SEA

REPL TO THE "OBSERVATIONS OF THE FRENCH GOVERMENT", STAT D IN LEnER DATED 28 MARCH , 2.001, REGARDING THE APP CATION FOR PROMPT RELEASE OF "GRAND PRINCE"

1. ~ Ware arranging for translation of the said letter Into english language.

2.- N twlthstandlng, we whish to advance to the Trlbunal the following com ents:

a) Fi Iy, we conSider that France should comply with the rules of the Trlbu al and appear In this proceeding (as this party has done) through an agen duly authorlzased I and to present any arguments through a "stat ment In response" I according to artlde 111.40 f the Rules of the Trlbu al.

b) W thout prejudice of the above, It seems that France Is forgetting, or tryin to forget, that artlde 73.2' sanctions that the coastal States can

and carry out judicial proceedings to ensure compliance with the nd regulations adopted by it, but always « In conformity with

at is at stake Is solely the question whether France has or not ed In this case the provisions of artJde 73,20 of the Convention. and only that, Is the subject matter of the case before this Trlbunal.

d) we will explain with more detail during the hearlngs , and we are sure that the Tribunal has It dear, a State cannot allegue a domestfc prec pt or law to justify a breach of the Convention, as the provisions of the I test prevail over domestiC Laws,

e) w thout prejudice of the above, we must point out that under paragraph 24 0 the application we indicated that , In fact, and irrespectively of the ques ion related to the reasonableness of the guarantee flxed by France

DOCUMENTS 201

J) We advanced In our appllcatlon that France was trying to convert articles 73 an 292 of the Convention In ' dead lett ... '. Now Is trying to avoid even lIle c ntrol by the Tribunal of the correct appllcatlon of the said precepts.

Ic.) Th refore, It Is evident that the present case has substance and a very Impo nt content.

I call your attention, Mr president, that the argument which France Is using to try to evade lIle requirement stated under article 73.2' supposes that State could avoid prompt release, not only of vessels, but also aews by Just carrying a quick or a summary process (upon arrival of tI1e detal d vessel to Port) .

Fren legislation (artide 4 of Law n' 66-400 of 18 June 1966) provides for «1m rlsonment» of the persons fishing without permission wlllling the Exclu Ive Economic Zone.

In thl partlrular case It has been confiscated the vessel, but It could well happ that the Judgement of the Correetlonnel Tribunal of Saint Denis dedd d the Imprisonment of the crew. If that were the case, and if we follow the tesls of France, the crew would have to remain In prision I

Irresp Ively of the appeal of the decision, and of what artlde 73.2 requl s ; ' arrested vessels and their aews shall be promptly released upon the p stlng of a reasonable bond or other serurity'

And tis, Mtr. President is unacceptable, extremely grave, and constltutes a flag ant breach of the Convention.

I) To me extent I can understand the interest of France in avoiding the prese t proceeding, as I If we bear In mind the content of the Convention and t e case-law of the this high Tribunal, It Is very difficult to defend the actua on of France In this particular matter.

I reca lin this reagard the words of the TrIbunal:

"The lease from detentlon can de subject only to a reasonable bond. '

It obv ously that prompt release of vessels and crews cannot be sujected to any d mestlc precepts which are not in conformity with the provisions of the C nventlon.


(pay ent In cash of 11,400,00.00 FF), 8 days after the notification to the Capt in of Grand Pr1nce of the ·ordennance- where the said guarantee was fixed the Trlbunal Correctionnei of Saint Denis dedded to confiscate the vess I, and to execute provisionally the confiscation.

We Iso explained under paragraphs 2S, 26, 27 and 28 of the same appU ation that the mentioned decision was never notified neither to the Capt in nor to the shipowner or to the State of Belize, reason why we could not nd it over to this International Tribunal .

How ver, we informed very dear to the Tribunal about the existence and cont nt of said decision, and we argued that such actuation was a way of evad og the relevant exigencies for the States parties to the Convention unde article 73.20 I which have been remarked and construed by this lnte atlonal Court.

We re now this Tribunal to dedde whether such actuation is "in conf rmlty" with artlde 73 of the Convention. This should not concern so

france.

f) In our application It was very clearly stated that there are four different and I dependent violations by france of article 73 of the Convention.

Thr related to the nature, form and amount of the bond (paragraphs 38, 39 a d 40), and one related to the way through which France Impeded to relea the vessel against any kind of guarantee (we refer In this respect to para raph 37)

g) d Mr. preSident, if you look at the guarantee f1xed by france you will at It Is exactly what this Tribunal considered as an unreasonable In previous cases for prompt release.

h) 0 Iy yesterday, curiously after having received france Our application, the wyer appOinted by the Captain of the vessel In Reunion received copy of th decl~on of confiscaUon. We celebrate to have In the proceeding copy of sa d decision.

I) W must recali that the said dedsion has been appealed. We hereby end se copy of the Acte D' Appeal filed in the name of the Captain of the vess I against the decision of confiscation, which France has forgotten to end se to his Letter. The date for the appeal Is still pendent.

DOCUMENTS 203

For a I the above, we consider that ; 1 tI} the "observations" stareo In me letter of France should be done by an agent duly appointed by france and rough a "statement In response", according to article 111 .40 f the Rules of the Tribunal ; 20) the arguments stated In the same letter are Inad Issible.

29 m rch , 2.001


c) Certification of the registration of the Grand Prince from the Director of INMARBE dated 30 March 2001, with Apostille

INTERNATIONAL MERCHANT MARINE REGISTRY OF BELIZE

" IMMARBE"

TO WHOM IT M AY CO NCERN

The undersigned, Director and Senior Deputy Registrar or the Intemational Merchant Marine Registry or Belize, duly empowered by the Merchant Ships Act, 1989/ 1996, hereby certifies that the vessel GRAND PRJNCE is rcgistered under the nag or Belize, holding registration Number 07972047 and call letters V3U17.

It is also cenified that there are docUments relating to the status or the vessel thai are pending to be processed, - including the cancellation or status which execution was suspended-, based on particular circumstances involving the situation or the vessel and relating to the detention instructed by the French authorities.

It is rurthcr cenified that, despite the expiration or the Patent or navigation and Ship station license the vessel, is still considered as registered in Belize until final decision or this Administration pending to the result or the court proceeding in which the vessel is engaged at the present time.

Issued in Belize City on the 30th March, 2001 .

Ml.RlHA TOWERS. SUITE 204. NEWT"CIY'.tI BARAACKS.IE.U%E ClTY. BEl..JZE. CENTRAi.AMERleA Toioophonoo.; Wl-24502111. 35031. 315()017 _ Toll,.,.: Wl-2-35G4B. :lI501O

DOCUMENTS 205

CEilTIFIH)


d) Request regarding possible application of article 28 of the Statute of the Tribunal dated 2 April 2001

~ 0 3 1,1, :.: ~ l&tseGD 0 lSI ....... -. - .--'-.--. -

The "Grand Prince" case.

Appears: Alberto Pene!as Alvarez, as agent '~Bellze

Stales'

Thai ill view of the position of the French State in the present proceeding, and for the case it does not appear In tho case by a duly legalised agent or otherwise lalls 10 defend the case, this party hereby requests the Tribunal to oonUnue the proceedings and pronounce the correspondent Judgement . basing the presGnt petiTion on Artlde 28 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

It Is Justice, which I respectfully pray in Hamburg, on the 2nd April 2.001

Alberto Po as Alvarez As agent for lize

DOCUMENTS 207

Additional documents submitted after the closure of the written proceedings (article 71 of the Rules of the Tribunal)Documents additionnels soumis après la clôture de la procédure écrite (article 71 du Règlement du Tribunal)

Submitted by Belize

Note from Mr Penelas Alvarez transmitting:- notification of the Cour d’appel of Saint-Denis concerning the date for a hearing (in French)


CDU .. »'".,'UDESAlNT·DEN/S ,

";UflVETO~

• Majrr. AN'rOlJ'ol I 266 "'" ~IrI&IIMI.u

)'01 ... ....-•• ,

ItO .. ' a :1OOOM .IT :

" 400 ST OIiNf;

nuz '"'0\10 a._ , .... " ..

IITC 4*",C~ M"",II:. AaIoI~"" ~1'r1' D~' .. AJC .... "IIG 1'1"" ....... h4IJiIIT i.e c~c

-C OM4T", L4 COMP"O/'OI'm """.n .... r ICS TnUlJ.. 4Un1I.A.,," "C;:Ol't ... l",. ~ c::o .... rn:. _WIOIOIAL M "Cltr. ""'1II1"D41[ ET ~I,IY"C;;c.a ". ..... ,.. D. , .... IIZi.JlII.OI'ti

....... '1 .. ,....., .. ,..' , 01 4\0

1'. i rt-l.IMlf " "'.IM rw-. COI.\l!AlfIT 4.e I',n-.n : eitJi. .n r"f1I:~'lCU 11:'1 ft .... r .udI .... dulJ .... h:lRbn 1 .. ' '''')0

DOCUMENTS 209

Soumis par la France

a) Letter of the Director of INMARBE to the Honorary Consul of France in Belize dated 26 March 2001

INTERNATIONAL MERCHANT MARINE. RECI~1'RV Ot" iU.LIZI:' " IMMARBE"

MltTeh 26, 2001

MI. imesto VasqueJ: Ho;wtaJy C::msul ofFtanc~ So.:lia Cit)'

DI:".1 Mr. Va.sque~

Thi~ is in reply lO your request for .a update on the lat~t developmtllts relating w the veH~el GRAND PRINCE. whioh was detained by the fr~~h Authorities due 10 .Ueged ;nfl'!ngc:ment of the fis.bill8 regulauon in the cxd\l.!ivc ecMOUllc zone of Kaguelen,

'He would like to inform you tbat while v,,:: were in the p(l.)USS of cancc1int\: tlI.~fficio the vessel's :itatus, tbt: owners ttque,l.e:d an opportuuity to ddend thcnuelves of the Ilcr,U$f.tloos by submitting an appe;l.l to the T'rib1.UlaJ.,for the Law oC the~.

Under this context and beina DeHz.e a member ofthc Convention on the Law of !he Sea we considered fair to allow the aIreCted pvty to file 11$ petilion for which pu.rpu.scs we r"'1liC5led our eompetCllt Iluthoritics to grant th.e aUlhtlrization for them to repr~"'i,1 tb.emselves 8t the mentioned Trib\l1lli:l,

Depending on the result of this court proc.eedini we will decide whether or nOI to m10TCt O\U ckcisiOlllO delete the 'lwei from QUI n:cords.

Re;;ards,

<~J" 'S .. :. . ,

t rector


b) Note verbale from the Ministry of Foregin Affairs of Belize to the Embassy of France in El Salvador dated 4 January 2001

~, .......... ~, .... .. ~ ,,,, ,"' ''U . ., ,

P.O . .. ·~ 17"

l'I_~lnfNCU~

~ ... ~C ,. :r-: \5011 g.. ~:U22 , 221 .. "1 ,: .... '""'.' ...... 4=~ ~-= ... _~~_. t...

~ __ :.~ .. ) .,:-, w~i5" A>'"iu uriX.iw,1"_M.> ii.:o .......... ;ruau.lI ,ioe ;;"'JOiay ofrraDCc ~~ ~'="" ;>i_~,::!-,,~~ R:,!, IU ~No1eoi:; illlJliill')' l.wi ..nlit rcii:renec:lO lQeOaaWoo ... ............ u--.. • ..,.,.... u ...... -..... "" •

7:.,., ~.~") u~r ... "~ ;,lW,,. .. C;iiQ; W iui~ IiJao 5c.iim"M aitippina rcgisuy iIas col1lirmea ;; .... .:.... .""""'; .. "".~.,.; .. j". w.: 0ciiJ£ I~. nDWI."¥Cf." WlI ~ me 5CCOIId teponea "VIOWlOli

aMnlTlinai rJl me veaci, tile puruUlIC ~ ~111& I.DI.poM(l by (be tlchttan IIlIlbonty IS 115 den:vSlraIJOfI rJfective toda, <4 JlIlIuary 200 I •

.. '" ioi"..w.o.) r ....... ,,:...--r..in, uio..,;n-; IOvlliis il:lcij"i ~owonunif111) rtneWm 1ilc~, Urrn>llcc"'II:II~ofiIllDi&DcstOO~.

Eab~i,. of "r1lJI« E!Sdvadcr

DOCUMENTS 211

c) Procès-verbal d’audience de personne gardée à vue du capitaine du Grand Prince dressé par la Gendarmerie maritime

PROCEDURE O' ENQUETt PREWHNAlRE

CU I15JO-PV .. - 09 / 2001 PROCES - VERBAL

DE

•

•

~

Voir P V deJYD1bbe

==~ GRAND PRINCE 19SH RIBIERA(Espagnc)

ft de NOVO MAIllTNEZ JosC:b, $itualion de I'anliIIe mari6 ~ CIIfaDu ~, Ruadacaballdn.IO, RD3IERA(Espap:),denarionalit~apI&nOIe, passtpOI'I .. -lJ22SSOI _ T vUbk:ju.squ'1U ISJ01I2010 ,~par 1'Espagnc.

Le 9jaavier 2001, ik 10 1leufts IS _Its' I lhcurts 30, PEREZ NOVO Ramon Francisoo I bmific::ie d'un temps de repos, dans Ie v&icuIe de dotllion Ion du tmupor! du navire i Il()IJe unit~ ainsi qu'lU bureau d~ notre unit~ Iors de II notification c1es-:y droioittl

19",~ ~ .

Au bureau de II brigade, tnlmdons en pIi:sence de MdIc VAl. Sophie, imctpfete, II pcnoMt da'Iomm6e ci-dtssus qui oous dtclue II bturt::s 30 milUes.

.. ····k Us Ie capitainc du lllvire de p6::be "GRAND PRlNCE'IkfW II fill du mois d'oaotn 2000. k"'lfrivt, l"iIe Marice par avian Ie 24 octabre 2000 1. appuftk! de Pan -I..ouiile 10 ~ 2000, lvee Ie GRAND PRINCE 1. _~ i BEIRA All MoZANBIQUEan-iron 2 , I S ;ours ~klIllrd. Ie IIIi:s rtlt~ &wi: joun pour appa-eiIIer pour DURBAN EN AfltIQUE U SUD 011 j Ii ICCOSI~ , II 6n du moil de ~e 2000 Iii appar~ de DURBAN Ie 2 011 Ie

] ~e 2000 ft dqJu:iscetle date Ie GRAND PRINCE est' II mer,_ - Le 26 d6canbrt 2000, if est e:ua queje me uouvail dans 1I:one ~ des iles de

...J K~en Ion du contr6l~ par Ie fregace "N'1V05e· . I ii b~ rtvti~ par Ie upilaane de ¢che loll de farrivOe d~ I'b&:optm IU dcssu.s du GRAND PRINCE. Le capilal/lC de p&he tit responsable de II pCehe. "If IIIOmCII! oU l'Mtioo:plue est arrive II NI .... e remontlit une paangre qui I'ttlil easste pour une nason que Je ne comIIl pas -- J~ lUis renue dans Ie zone «onomique vet'! uoe heure Ie 26 ~ 2000 rli pris a)IUCt par radio ~ Ie district des lies de KerguBen, i dem: 011 trois reprites avee Ia radio MFIHF ICOM W bordo J~ o'li pas tu de Iiponse et: je suis pani me eoueber Ie ail qu'il raUl ~ son mtde ft Ie 10IU'IaF ddftILI' bord aVl/l de rentref dans II_ 6t:onomique F~ •• -

Le 9 janvio- 2001,' 12 beureslO lllilues. L'ioI:~ dkIar-. lie pas"voir lire, iii 6c:fn, iii coonpomdle Ii parler Ie ~ Iec:tun des l(:lISeiglltmMI d'cw civil eI de It 6b:Iuationci-dasu lui 1 iI'! faitt par J'inlCl')rite, dans unr langue qu'iJ COIIIp'aIcI en IaqudIe iI penisl:t 0'1)'l1li lien, ydlangcr, i y ajouter 011' Y retrm;:ha »


GENDARMERIE MARITIME P.e. JONQUILLE

P.Vn° 09nOOI Piece nO .,. Feuillet nO 21 J

Du 12 heures 30 i 14 hcures 00, PEREZ NOVO Ramon FfIl!cisco beneficie d'uD temps de rcpos i bord du PCG 'Jooquille', un repas lui est seM. (Emretien I\"t(: ~hitre ANTOINE Alain de 13 hcures 00 i 13 hcures 30).----'-__ La pe'SMII! rnlendJlt. L'interodrr.

Le 9jamier 2001, i 14 hcures 00, en presence de Melle VAR Sophie, nous proctdons a une deuxieme audilion de PERU NOVO Ramon Francisco, qui declare :

••• La palangre qui etail i I. mer appanient au GRAND PRINCE. n oJ' pas eu d'incidenl partirulier 100 de Ia visite du bord iii lars du dCroolement vm Ia Ratruon. Cest Ie capilaine de pCcbe qui I donne I'ordre Ires rapidenienllors de rintervention de l'heIicoplere. rai demande au capitaine de p&;he s'il Y avail beauc:ou.p d'IPJnfc:ils i reau (paIangre), il m'l declare qu'il y en avail quinzc. Un Ippareil dispose de 80 i 90 ~ns distanc6 d'une Ioll$UeUf de 1,5 metres i 2 metres entre chaque ham~ons. Le journal cit ILlvigation du Grand ponce s'arreJe Ie 23 decembre 2000 ella position indiquCe (fro 40' Sud et 075° 30' Esf) est cdle de 12 heum (horloge du bateau qui correspond Ii l'heure du fuseau de l'ile Maurice). Ceslla demiere position qui. ete ponee au joomaI de navigation. Cest moi qui ai rempli Ie nouveau jOWllal de navigation du 24 au 26 dCcembre 2000 ala demande de requipe de visite pendant Ie controle. Je n'ai rein piche dans Ia zone econorruque, il s'agissait de mon premier jour de piche, dans cette zone. Le poisson qui se ttOU'o"3it dans les tunnels de COD$aalion a ete p&:hC Ie 25 decembre 2000 en dehors de Ia zone economique. je pense que ce poisson a etc place en tunnel de congelation au COlJIS de II matinee du 26 decembre 2000. Pendant cette visite du 26 dCcentbre 2000,j'ai porte en prCsence de rofficier du Nivose, rna position sur Ia CIl1e OJ Grand prince, cane 4711 lies d'Amsterd1m 1m iles Kerguelen qui itait 47" 45,80' sud et 073° 43,96' Est, j'ai sip la cane, il s'agissait de Ia position GPS du bordo Pour moije me situais i 40 nautiques i l'intmeur de la zone ecooomique. Je suis rcolt!! dans la zone iconomique F~ en cornmun accord a\·ec Ie ca~laine de piche pour Ia raison suivante: c'esIl1n endroil oil ~ Y I du poisson et noire piche deptlls Ie dcoot de la mar6e n'est pas fonnidable. Nous IVOns pecht en dcoot de marie entre 12 et IS tOMes de legines. - - -- - - Le Grand Prince est la propriete de READON COMMERCIAL CORP. International Business Compagny i VIGO en Espagne.le petl$C qu'il Y a plusieurs armateurs,je!le connais qu'un sad (Jose NOGUEIRA demeurant en .E$pagne). rli un salaire fixe pa~ en Espagne par READOM COMMERCIAL CORP. - --- - - Je reconnais Ies infractions rdevees i mon encontre i savoie: etre en action de peehe dans Ia zone 6c0n0mique ~ du fait que Ie navire posait une palangre, ne pas avoir dCclart mon entree en zone economique ni Ie tonnage de poisson detenu a bordo •••••

Le 9 janvier 2001 , i 16 hcures 00. L'interes.se declarant At pas savoir lire, iii ecnre, iii comprendre iii parler Ie ~ lecture des renseignement.s d'etat civil et de Ia dkLtration ci-dessus lui. ete faile pM l'interprite, dans une langue qu'il comprend en JaqueDe il persiSle n'ayant rien l Y changer, a Y Ijouter ou . y retranchc:r. It ---'-_--'"_-'-

LP prrsonne tn/endue. L'inlerprilt,

~

DOCUMENTS 213

•

GENDARMERIE MARITIME P C JONQun.LE

Assistc de Melle V AR Sophie, interprClC en langue espagnole.

P V nO 0912001 Piece nO 1 Feuillet n° ) I )

Ou 9 ianvief 200li 16 wes 00 au 10 janvier 2001,i 14 beures 00, PEREZ NOVO Ramon Franasco, btnt6cie d'un temps de rcpos, partie III bJreau de IIOIrt brigJde, partie dans Ie vdicuIc de dotation et dans Ia cbambre de surtu! de II brigade de gendarmerie de SainI GiBes Ic:s Bains (EItree Ie 9 jamier 2001 i 2Q heures 00, sortie Ie IOjamier 2001 i 07 bcurtS 30). Ua diner kli a itt sen; Ie 9 janvieret un petit dejeuner Ie 10 Janvier 2001 Presentarioa dtv.ut moosieur Ie Substitut, i bard de Ia 'J~'1e 10 janvier 2001 entre OS beures 45 d 09 heures 00. Notification de II proIonptlOll de09 mes 00 i 09 lIMes 30. Un dCjcuncr servi Ie 10 janvier 2001

L'mlerprtlC.

l.c 10 jamier 2001 , i 14 beures 00, en presence de Meile VAR Soptie, IWS proct.dons i unc auditiOll de PEREZ NOVO Ramon Francisco, qui dicbrt :

'0' Ie c:onfirme IDeS dkluatioa du 9 jamier 2001 Je n'li aJCUJle obsavation i fumuln sur Ic:s conditioos de rna prde i \'\Ie.

Question. Connaissez.·YOU$ Ie nom de pretidant capitaine du navin: 1

Riponse: Je ne Ie coonW pas penonndltment mais jt rai rtrK:ontre 100 de I. relm a Port· Louis Son nom est inscril sur Ie joumaJ de navigation du bord i II date de Ia relhe soil Ie 25 octobre 2000 II s'agit de Manuel SAMPEDRO GARCIA.

Quesl:im Sur II photo du 'Gra!Id Prince', prise par l'htIic:op(ere III debut du controle rc:axu13issez.vous II ~gne de palangre demere et sur Ie tnDord du IIlvire ' Reponse; k reconnais unc: ~ u I'arriCre du lllvire ct unc: corde de reterue AIr tribord.

Qxstioa.: Que deduise:z·vow de cttte phoco, en sachanl que vow dormia 1 Rtponse: Cest un appareil $IJ\$ ~.

QuestiOll: Savn· vous queIIes ewent les intentions du capitainc de pecht au we de cene photo prise pM Micopttre dIllS 11 ZEE de Kerguelen '1 Reponse. Je pense qu'll S"gil d'une palangre qui s'est cwee Ion de II mise i reau

i.e 10 jamier 2001 i IS heures 00 L 'interesse declannt ne pIS Slvoir lire, iii ecrire, iii comprendre iii ~uk:r Ie ~ lecture des renseignemmts d'nll civil tI de II decI&ration cHiessus lui I uc &ite par l'inIerpcite, dans une langue qu'~ comprend en iIqudIe a persiste n'ayanl nen' ydwtger, ' y ajouterou' y retrancber. » --'----'--'---'---'

L 'inJerprilt


•

GENDARMERIE MARITIME p.e JONQUILLE

P.V n° 0912001 Piece nO 1 Feuillet nO 415

Dc IS heures 00 i 19 heures 00, PEREZ NOVO Ramon Francisco, bCntHicie d'un IttnpS de repc:lS au bureau de notre brigade. (Audition de 15 beures I S a 16 heures 00 par Its service du poste de siirde w territolre de la Reunion, dans Ie cadre du conunission rogatOlft nO ,1100/56 delrme par madame ATZORl, vice prCsidenI, charge de rlllSUUCtioo).

La pmooll( tn/endue , dt"~16

L 'imen;ri~

De 19 heures 00 i 21 hcures 00, PEREZ NOVO Ramon Francisco,!lOUS assiSlc Iors de la remise des documents ofliciels du navire Grand Prince. (PV de saisie piece 0° 28).

L'MOOtt

A 21 hcures 00, en pr6ence de MeUe V AR Sophie, nous proddons i une audition de PEREZ NOVO Ramon Francisco qui nous declare :

... A votredemande jt YOUS Ii temis IOUS 1es dowment! omeiels du navire. Sur Ie scenes nO 10, rarmatcurdu Illvin!tst ' PAlK COM1fERClAL CORP . • 35 A Regenl SUCCI P.O. BOX 17n· BELIZE City, BELIZE' to1ificat provisoire detim Ie 16 OCIoore 2000 d valabIe jusqu'au 29 dkembre 2000. Sur Ie see/Its nO 12, Ie na\ve est 11 prop~e de HASKEll. SHIPPING ET PROPERTIES LTD 49 south Mall, Cork, Ireland. Le represeotant est Joseph Anthony O'Connor Anomer-In.fact,- --••• A bord ,'est Ie capitaine de p&:hc qui I des contact avec l'armateur. A Ia mer ces toDIacl son! etabIi avec rinmarsat du bord. rai eu un sall contlCl lord de mon engagement, i VIGO, avec un des armateut NOGUEIRA Jose. Je n'ai ell atICUD COOlie! avec les representant de retal du pa\ilJon de BELIZE. A ma collIllissance, Ie capitaine de pecbe n'a pas d'autre conllCl qu',vee rannateut. A ma connaiuance Ie Grand Prince est Ie seWlllvirc de Ia societe . ••• - - - C'est rumaleur qui decide du ~eu de debatquement du produit de Ia peche. Chaque marec dure entre c:inquante et soixante jour . .....

Lc 10 janvier 2001, a 21 hanes )0. L'interesse declarant ne pas savoir lire, ni me, ni comprendre ni J.Wler Ie fran.rais. lecture des renseignements d'etat civil et de la declaration ci-dessus lui I ete rllte par l'interpretc, dans UIIC langue qu'il comprend en bqueUe jJ persiste n'ayam rien i y changer, II y ajooler ou i y retrancbcr.» --'---:---'---'--:c:-'-,--

~ __ Lit j?

DOCUMENTS 215

GENDARMERlE MARlTIME P.C. JONQUILLE

P.V nO 0912001 Piece nO 7

Feuillet nO 515

Du IOjanvier200" 21 heures]Oau 11 janvier 200 liI 09 he~ 15, PEREZ NOVO Ramon Francisco, IXneficie d'un temps de repos, partie au Mau de notre brigade, partie dans Ie v~hK:ule de dotation et dans I. ehambre de s(bet~ de ,. brigade de gendarmerie de Saint Gilles Ies Bains (Entree Ie 10 janvier 2001 '22 beUfes ]0, sortie Ie I I janvier 2001 '07 beures 30). Un

~ .. ~~"-~