On 16 March 1978, the supertanker Amoco Cadiz, owned by Amoco International Oil Company (Amoco), ran aground in a severe storm, spewing most of its load of 220,000 tons of Iranian crude into the seas off Brittany. The wreck damaged approximately 180 miles of coastline in one of the most important tourist attractions and fishing regions in France. After the Amoco Cadiz ran aground, the French Navy served Amoco with an official demand to remove the oil or accept responsibility for it. Amoco answered through its insurance representative that it could not undertake the cleanup and asked the French government to commence the cleaning. Amoco would pay the reasonable costs for reasonable actions agreed by Amoco and Government. The French navy, the army, local officials, and private parties thereafter set to work. Amoco lent no aid but did consult with the persons in charge. After the cleanup, the parties did not agree on what ‘reasonable costs’ for the work were. Although France was a signatory to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (CLC 1969), in order to avoid the limitation of liability regime under the CLC 1969, the French government tried to invoke art 1382 of the French Civil Code to get full reimbursement. Amoco countered that the principle of gratuité des services publics (free public services doctrine) governed, where tortfeasors need not compensate the government for the cost of services that a public body ordinarily supplies.

Held: The French government was entitled to an award for the costs incurred by public agencies in responding to spill under art 1382 of the French Civil Code.

The court held that the French public agencies actions and costs incurred in responding to the oil spill caused by the grounding of the oil tanker were authorised by the sovereign’s entitlement to compensation for costs of protecting and restoring the public property.

In addition, the court found that what the French statute disputed here referred to the Intervention on the High Seas Convention, not the CLC 1969. Therefore, the French statute authorised recovery for necessary measures on both land and sea caused by the release of oil as result of an accident at sea. Thus, even assuming that the sovereign’s entitlement to recover damages for injury to its proprietary interests was insufficient to support the entire award in the spill case, the doctrine of gratuité des services publics (free public service doctrine) did not control the outcome.