According to the general lawyer of the Law court EU, the survivors and the relatives of the victims of the shipwreck of the Al Salam Boccaccio 98 they can demand the damages to the RINA



The general lawyer of the Law court of the European Union, Maciej Szpunar, has introduced today own conclusions on the demand turned to the Court from the Court for Genoa relatively to the case of the shipwreck of the ship Al Salam Boccaccio 98, Panamanian clapper flag, happened on February 3, 2006 in international waters of the Red Sea. The incident caused the dead women of beyond thousand people and in its conclusions - than they do not bind the Law court - specific Szpunar that the survivors and the relatives of the victims can demand the compensation of the damages to the society of RINA Spa classification and the Agency Italian Registry of Shipping, organisms both with center to Genoa.

In particular, general lawyer Szpunar proposes to the Law court of the EU to declare that the victims of the shipwreck of a ship Panamanian clapper flag can address to the Italian judges for an action for damages against the Italian agencies that they have classified and certifyd such ship.

In the conclusions one remembers that in the 2013 survivors and the relatives of the deceased victims they have dared the Court of Genoa having asked to condemn RINA and Agency Italian Registry of Shipping to the compensation of the patrimonial damages and endured moral supporting that the operations of certification and classification of the ship carried out by these organisms are to the origin of the shipwreck, while RINA and the Agency Italian Registry of Shipping assert to have acted as delegated of the Republic of Panama hat, sovereign State, and assert the jurisdictional immunity. From here the demand for the Court of Genoa to the Law court of the EU for knowing the genoese court if he must renounce to judge the cause in reason of said immunity exception or if he must apply to the regulations "concerning Brussels" the jurisdictional competence and to exercise own competence which judge of the place in which the agency against which the question is proposed he is domiciled or he has own center.

In its today's conclusions, the general lawyer considers first of all that the prejudicial issues are receivable, although one of the parts asserts own immunity, as the Court are called, in particular, to interpret the regulations "Brussels I". Szpunar then recalls the jurisprudence of the Court second which the jurisdictional immunity of the States, recognized from the international law, is not absolute: in fact, in general terms, it is recognized when the controversy regards actions completed in the exercise of publics powers, while instead it is excluded if the cause concerns on actions that do not re-enter in the exercise of publics powers.

The general lawyer explains that the international law does not prevent to the legislators to adopt norms on the competence applicable to the controversies in which one of the parts can make use of the jurisdictional immunity. This that the international law demands is that the jurisdiction regarding such a part against its will does not practice. Szpunar states moreover that the within of application of the regulations "Brussels" regards the controversies re-entering in the civil and commercial matter. Such within excludes, in particular, the fiscal, customs and administrative matter or the responsibility of Been about to actions completed in the exercise of publics powers. Consequently, in principle, the directed actions to obtain the compensation of a damage fall back within application of the regulations "Brussels I". However, if an action in relation to which the responsibility is deduced constitutes esplicazione of publics powers by virtue of the exercise of powers that esorbitano from the sphere of the norms applicable to the relationships between private, it is placed to us to out of the "civil and commercial matter" and, therefore, of the within of application of the regulations "Brussels I".

The general lawyer currency, successively, if the operations of classification and certification of a ship constitute a similar esplicazione of publics powers. In the Szpunar conclusions he observes that the fact that such operations are delegated by a State, carried out on behalf and in the completed interest of an international State or running of the obligations of a State it necessarily does not involve the existence of a manifestation of publics powers and, therefore, it does not exclude the application of the regulations "Brussels I". The general lawyer states, in particular, than the Panamanian administration he has delegated to the interested Italian agencies of the activities of technical nature. Consequently, the certification and classification operations in question cannot be considered esplicazioni of the exercise of prerogatives of the publics powers. Consequently, an action for damages you damn directed against the agencies that have completed similar operations re-enter within application of the regulations "Brussels I".

The general lawyer examines, at last, the effect of the jurisdictional immunity, according to the international law, on the exercise of such competence by the national judges. Precise Szpunar that the Court is competent to interpret the international law in so far as this last one can affect the interpretation of the right of the Union. The general lawyer inequivocabilmente finds therefore that not sussiste a by right customary international norm - that is to say a accepted effective praxis as if it were a binding norm - that affords to the agencies of classification and certification as those interested to make use of the jurisdictional immunity of the States in circumstances as those of the species case.

In the hypothesis in which the Court he does not share its analysis, the general lawyer observes that the dispositions of the regulations "Brussels" must be interpreted in the sense that guarantee the access to the justice at the same time, respecting the international law, and to such Szpunar purpose it finds that the jurisdictional immunity constitutes a limitation of the access to the justice. In general terms - specific Szpunar- a similar limitation, justified from the scope to favor the good relations between States, is not disproportionate when it by right reflects generally recognized principles international and, considered that not there are doubts in order to the subsistence of the effective access to the courts Panamanians, the right of access to the courts not osterebbe therefore to that the Court of Genoa recognizes the jurisdictional immunity of the RINA and the Agency Italian Registry of Shipping.