ASSAUPAMAR et al v. X Reference : No description Complaint date : February 24, 2006 Status : Provisional judgment Place of jurisdiction : France, Paris Plaintiffs types : Environmental NGOs, Health/Food groups, Individuals, Unions Plaintiffs names : 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) Defendants : Other Lawyers : 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, Alex Ursulet Case nature : Criminal court Products : Chlordecone, Insecticide, Organochlorine Requests : Indictment of those responsible for poisoning, complicity in poisoning and endangering the lives of others by chlordecone Name of the Court : Judicial Court of Paris , France Jurisdiction level : Court Decision date : January 2, 2023 Decision nature : Negative Decision content : Final dismissal of the case Legal basis : National law Court Ruling : Link to the ruling Summary : In 2006, several groups from Martinique and Guadeloupe filed a complaint for poisoning, endangering the lives of others and administering a harmful substance. Since 2008, the public health unit of the Paris judicial court has been in charge of a judicial investigation. On November 24, 2022, the Public Prosecutor's Office issued its final recommendation to dismiss the case. According to him, the facts of poisoning could not receive the legal qualification of poisoning and would be prescribed. On January 2, 2023, the investigating judges dismissed the case. The applicants will appeal this judgment. Scientific references : No scientifice reference for this case. Related links : Chlordécone : les plaignants sont entendus par le Tribunal de Paris Procès chlordécone : La possibilité d'un non-lieu provoque la colère des plaignants Affaire du chlordécone : un non-lieu attendu, indignation aux Antilles Final dismissal of the chlordecone case in the West Indies: 3 questions to environmentalist and lawyer Louis Boutrin Scandale du chlordécone : la justice prononce un non-lieu