Oil discharge, deballasting, bunker spill, slick detected by satellite: two sets of proceedings start at once, civil compensation and criminal prosecution, and they do not target the same people.
You are facing:
- a discharge observed behind your vessel by aircraft or satellite
- the master held in police custody or the owner summoned
- a compensation claim from a municipality, a port or a shellfish farmer
- a refusal of cover or a reservation from your P&I club
- a cargo or a charter implicated in a pollution incident
When a slick appears behind a ship, the file immediately splits in two. On one side, compensation of the victims, organised by the international conventions, which channel liability onto the registered owner and its insurer. On the other, prosecution, under national law, which looks for a culprit and works its way up from the master to the owner. The two sets of proceedings run in parallel, before different judges, with different standards of fault.
The firm acts on both: for shipowners, managers and charterers who are prosecuted or joined as third parties, and for claimants, local authorities, maritime professionals and subrogated insurers, who must recover their losses within a system of ceilings. The general framework is set out on the maritime law page.
The risk: exposure that goes beyond the ship and its insurance
On the civil side, Article III(1) of the 1992 CLC makes the registered owner strictly liable for any pollution damage caused by a laden tanker, without any fault to be proved. For all other vessels, the 2001 Bunkers Convention extends that strict liability, jointly and severally, to the bareboat charterer, the manager and the operator. Compensation is capped in tiers: 89,770,000 SDR for the owner (Article V of the 1992 CLC), 203,000,000 SDR for the 1992 Fund, 750,000,000 SDR for the 2003 Supplementary Fund. Beyond the conventions, the Court of Justice held in Commune de Mesquer v Total (24 June 2008, C-188/07) that the seller of the cargo may have to bear the cost of disposing of spilled oil where it contributed to the risk.
On the criminal side, the French Environmental Code knows no channelling. Article L. 218-11 punishes a deliberate discharge in breach of MARPOL with a fine of EUR 100,000; Article L. 218-12 raises the penalty to ten years’ imprisonment and a EUR 15 million fine for certain categories of vessel; Article L. 218-19 punishes discharge through mere carelessness or negligence. Above all, Article L. 218-18 makes those penalties applicable to the owner, the operator, their de jure or de facto managers and any person exercising a power of control or direction over the management of the vessel. The Erika judgment (Cour de cassation, criminal chamber, 25 September 2012, no. 10-82.938) confirmed that the charterer itself could be convicted, the channelling immunity giving way to the carelessness of its vetting department. Those fines are not covered by P&I clubs.
A discharge has just been recorded, the master is being questioned or a claim has arrived? The first hours fix the evidence: a first conversation tells you what must be preserved, declared and challenged.
The legal answer: secure the evidence, qualify the regime, choose the forum
Everything turns on the first hours. The vessel’s exact position at the time of the discharge governs the penalty: beyond the territorial sea, only fines may be imposed (Article L. 218-22). AIS data, satellite imagery and drift models are the exhibits that decide the case, and they must be obtained and challenged as soon as the investigation opens, before the vessel leaves port. Prosecution lies with the specialised coastal courts (Article 706-107 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure).
Then comes qualification. Laden tanker or not, bunkers or cargo, territorial sea or economic zone, operational or accidental discharge: each answer switches the case from one regime to another, and with it the compensation ceiling, the insurer on risk, the competent court and the very existence of a direct action against the insurer (Article VII(8) of the CLC). Limitation of liability (1976 LLMC as amended in 1996) is no longer a given: several courts have set it aside or worked around it in 2025 and 2026, and the prompt constitution of a limitation fund before the French courts has become a strategic decision. The insurance aspects are developed on the marine insurance page.
Finally, the European timetable. Directive (EU) 2024/3101, to be transposed by 6 July 2027, turns the repression of discharges into a strict administrative sanction aimed at the company; Directive (EU) 2024/1203 raises criminal fines for legal persons to 5% of worldwide turnover or EUR 40 million. The combination of an administrative fine and a criminal fine for the same facts opens a line of defence based on the ne bis in idem principle (Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights), which must be prepared now.
How the firm works
For shipowners, managers and charterers: assistance to the master and crew from the inspection or police custody onwards, coordination with the P&I club and the local correspondent, challenge of the findings (position, origin of the discharge, characterisation of the vessel within the meaning of Article L. 218-12), defence before the specialised coastal court, constitution of the limitation fund, handling of the compensation side and of recourse claims between owner, manager, charterer and bunker supplier.
For claimants: assessment of the loss, filing of claims with the owner, its insurer and the IOPC Fund within the conventional time limits, direct action against the insurer, civil party claims in the criminal proceedings, and pursuit of those liable beyond the ship where the ceiling is insufficient. Where a ship arrest is needed to secure the claim, it is applied for without delay.
Based in Paris, the firm acts in all French ports, from Le Havre to Marseille and from Nantes-Saint-Nazaire to Antibes, before the specialised coastal courts and the Chambre arbitrale maritime de Paris, and works in English with P&I clubs, insurers and foreign counsel.
Two analyses and a guide
Two analyses published by the firm detail this area: who is prosecuted and what is at stake, on the criminal side, and who pays, and how much, on the civil side. The Marine Pollution Liability guide maps the actors and their exposure, tabulates the sanctions and sets out the first-hours methodology.
Does your situation resemble one of those described here? Tell us the facts and we will tell you the applicable regime, the time limits and the strategy.
Everything on marine pollution
Our practical guides
Frequently asked questions
Which lawyer should I instruct for a marine pollution incident in France?
A maritime lawyer able to run the criminal side (the master’s police custody, the specialised coastal court) and the civil side (CLC, Bunkers and IOPC Fund conventions, limitation fund, recourse between owner, manager and charterer) at the same time. The firm, based in Paris, acts in that role for shipowners, their insurers and claimants, in all French ports and in English.
Who is liable for oil pollution caused by a ship in France?
In civil terms, the registered owner, strictly, under Article III of the 1992 CLC for laden tankers, and jointly the owner, bareboat charterer, manager and operator under the 2001 Bunkers Convention for other vessels. In criminal terms, the master and, under Article L. 218-18 of the French Environmental Code, any person exercising, in law or in fact, a power of control or direction over the management of the vessel.
What does the master or the owner risk for a discharge at sea?
Up to EUR 100,000 in fines for a deliberate discharge (Article L. 218-11 of the Environmental Code), and up to ten years’ imprisonment and a EUR 15 million fine for certain categories of vessel (Article L. 218-12). Discharge through carelessness or negligence is also punishable (Article L. 218-19). Beyond the territorial sea, only fines may be imposed (Article L. 218-22).
Can the shipowner limit liability?
In principle yes, by constituting a limitation fund calculated on the vessel’s tonnage (1992 CLC for tankers, 1976 LLMC as amended in 1996 for other claims). Limitation is lost where the damage results from the owner’s personal act committed with intent to cause it, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result. Several foreign courts have set limitation aside in 2025 and 2026, and the choice of forum has become decisive.
Can a claimant sue the ship’s insurer directly?
Yes, where liability falls under a convention imposing compulsory insurance (CLC, Bunkers). Article VII(8) of the CLC allows the insurer to rely only on the statutory limit, the owner’s own defences and the owner’s wilful misconduct, excluding any defence drawn from the insurance contract. Outside those conventions, direct action depends on national law and often runs into the P&I clubs’ “pay to be paid” rule.
What should be done in the first hours after a pollution incident?
Preserve the ship’s data (log books, recorder, engine and AIS data), obtain the maritime authority’s findings and the imagery relied on, manage the statements of the master and crew, notify the P&I club and the hull insurer, and involve a lawyer before any interview. The vessel’s position, the origin of the discharge and the technical characterisation of the vessel are the three points that will decide the case.
Matters in this field are handled by Hervé Guyader, lawyer at the Paris Bar and doctor of law.