ASSAUPAMAR et al v. Unknown person

No description
February 24, 2006
Final judgment
France, Paris

Environmental NGOs, Health/Food groups, Individuals, Unions, Prosecutor
ASSAUPAMAR, Association pour une écologie urbaine, Union des producteurs agricoles de Guadeloupe (UGP), Union régionale des consommateurs, Conseil régional de la Guadeloupe, Confédération paysanne, Union des groupements des producteurs de bananes de Guadeloupe et de Martinique, Générations futures, Asociation ENVIE-SANTE, CGT Guadeloupe, Union Générale deTravailleurs de Guadeloupe (UGTG), Association médicale pour la sauvegarde de l'environnement et de la santé (AMSES), Association internationale pour la réparation MIR Martinique, Malcolm Djama Ferdinand, Patricia Chatenay Rivauday, Collectivité territoriale de la Martinique, Conseil représentatif des associations noires (CRAN), Public prosecutor of Paris
State, Minister of Agriculture, Health Minister, Other
Dominique Monotuka, Jean-Paul Teissoniere, Georges Louis Boutrin, Raphaël Constant, Margaret Tanger, Ernest Daninthe, Harry Durimel, Jean-Claude Durimel, Frédérique Baulieu, Julie Bariani, Jean-Bernard Thomas, François Lafforgue, Gilles Devers, Rachid Madid, Olivier Tabone, Christophe Lèguevaques

Criminal court
Chlordecone, Organochlorine
Complaint for poisoning, complicity in poisoning and endangering the lives of others by chlordecone
Judicial Court of Paris , France

January 2, 2023
No need to adjudicate against anyone for the crime of poisoning, administration of harmful substances, endangering others, deception as to the substantial qualities and risks inherent in the use of goods.

On January 2, 2023, the investigating judges of the Judicial Court of Paris dismissed the complaints lodged on February 24, 2006, May 2 and June 1, 2007 by several associations in Martinique and Guadeloupe, alleging the administration of harmful substances, poisoning and endangering the population with Curlone, an insecticide containing chlordecone, illegally delivered and used for banana cultivation, as well as the indictment of October 21, 2008 by the Paris Public Prosecutor, who referred to the Court the facts of fraud on the substantial qualities or the risks inherent in the use of the goods. In its decision to dismiss the case, the Court found, in particular, that the criminal acts had not been sufficiently characterized, and were partially covered by the statute of limitations.

In France, the product was marketed between 1981 and 1990, even though the harmful health effects of chlordecone were already known to the authorities. Several studies had already demonstrated chlordecone's endocrine-disrupting and carcinogenic potential. After its ban on February 1, 1990, derogations were granted to extend its use in Guadeloupe and Martinique until 1993. The French State, the Ministries of Agriculture and Health, the administrations and public officials involved in the approval of curlone and the derogatory authorizations subsequent to the withdrawal of approval, as well as a number of natural and legal persons involved in the manufacture, import, distribution and use of curlone, were thus implicated.

Despite the fact that the case was dismissed, the Court did point out that "the documents and testimonies gathered during the judicial investigation highlighted the antisocial behavior of some of the economic players in the banana industry, which was relayed and amplified by the carelessness, negligence and ignorance of the public authorities, administrators and politicians who authorized the use of KEPONE and then CURLONE at a time when economic productivity took precedence over health and environmental concerns".

An appeal has been lodged against this decision, and the entire population of Martinique is invited to join the civil action.