Monte Confurco Case.odp

The Monte Confurco Case,

Prompt Release

(Seychelles v. France)

 

Presented By  Arjun Bajpai 11IP!!1"

Facts ●

●

●

The #$nte C$n%urc$ &as a Seychelle %la''ed and $&ned %ishin' vessel. The vessel &as $arded y the cre& $% French surveillance &hile the vessel &as in their er'uelen Islands in the French S$uthern and  Antarctic Territ$ries. The Islands are l$cated in France*s e+clusive ec$n$ic $ne. The vessel and captain $% the vessel entered the e+clusive ec$n$ic $ne &ith$ut perissi$n $r declarin' the %ish $n $ard. The French seied the vessel and its aster declarin' the release $nly a%ter payent

Facts C$ntd. ●

●

Seychelles is claiin' that the $nd set y France &as n$t reas$nale and the #aster $% the ship sh$uld e released &ith$ut a $nd ecause he sh$uld n$t e suject t$ ipris$nent. France clais the $nd is reas$nale %$r such 'rave crie and &ants Seychelles reuest rejected.

Issues ●

●

 Adissiility $% applicati$n under Article 232 $% 45C67S t$ the triunal. 8eas$naleness $% the B$nd.

 Ar'uents y Seychelles ●

●

●

Seychelles reuested the triunal t$ declare that France has C$ntravened &ith Article "9(/) y n$t 'ivin' pr$per n$tice $% the arrest.  Als$ reuested the triunal t$ declere the 'urantee reuired y France as 4nreas$nale "9(2). They als$ c$ntended that France did n$t c$plied &ith the pr$visi$ns $% "9(9).

 Acticle "9 $% 45C67S (:n%$rceent $% la&s and re'ulati$ns $% the C$astal State)

2. Arrested vessels and their cre&s shall e pr$ptly released up$n the p$stin' $%  reas$nale $nd $r $ther security. 9. C$astal State penalties %$r vi$lati$ns $% %isheries la&s and re'ulati$ns in the e+clusive ec$n$ic $ne ay n$t include ipris$nent, in the asence $% a'reeents t$ the c$ntrary y the States c$ncerned, $r any $ther %$r $% c$rp$ral punishent. /. In cases $% arrest $r detenti$n $% %$rei'n vessels the c$astal State shall pr$ptly n$ti%y the %la' State, thr$u'h appr$priate channels, $% the acti$n ta0en and $% any penalties suseuently ip$sed.

France ;e%ence ●

●

France c$ntended that the ship had een disc$vered in the ::< $% France, &ith$ut havin' 'ivin' n$ti%icati$n $% its presence even th$u'h the vessel &as euipped &ith Teleph$ne Facility  Als$ c$ntended that the ship &as en'a'ed in ille'al %ishin' $% $vere+pl$ited specie called as =T$$th%ish=

;ecisi$n ●

●

●

Since $th the parties &ere si'nat$ries t$ 45C67S and the applicati$n satis%ied the reuireents $% secti$n 232(2) $% 45C67S and 8ules 11!, 111 $% the Triunal. Triunal rejected Seychelles ar'uent that pr$per n$tice &as n$t 'iven>"9(/)? and the detenti$n $% the #aster $% Ship &as a 'rave vi$lati$n $% his pers$nal ri'hts >"9(9)? The triunal als$ %$und the the $nd ip$sed y the French c$urt &as n$t reas$nale pursuant t$ article 232 and there%$re n$n c$pliance &ith "9(2) &as &ell-%$unded y a v$te $% 13@1.

8eas$naleness $% B$nd The following points to be relevant for determining the amount and nature of the bond or other financial security:  The gravity of the alleged offences;  The penalties imposed or imposable under the laws of the detaining State; and  The value of the detained vessel and of the cargo seized;

●

The Triunal deterined, y 1"@9, that the $nd shall c$nsist $%@ (1) an a$unt $% nine illi$n French %rancs (3,!!!,!!! FF) as the $netary euivalent $% the 1 t$nnes $% t$$th%ish seied y the French auth$rities and (2) a $nd in the a$unt $% nine illi$n French %rancs (3,!!!,!!! FF).

●

Triunal held that the $nd sh$uld e pr$p$rti$nal t$ the vi$lati$n alle'ed and sh$uld n$t ta0e a punitive $r deterrent character. Th$u'h this is a very seri$us $%%ence in France, still they &ill have t$ strictly c$ply &ith the principle $% Internati$nal la&.

Than0 $u