Clamorosi elementi escono dalle carte depositate dalla Costa Crociere SpA, nel corso dell’esame sulla istanza di sequestro della nave COSTA DIADEMA,
proposta dal pool “Giustizia per la Concordia“, circa 30 studi legali italiani – compreso il nostro – che sono costituiti nel giudizio penale contro Schettino in corso di svolgimento a Grosseto.
Costa per evitare il rischio di sequestro, svela i retroscena delle liquidazioni fin qui riconosciute ai membri dell’equipaggio ed ai passeggeri ed emergono con ogni evidenza i criteri discriminatori utilizzati dalla compagnia nei risarcimenti in favore dei membri
del proprio equipaggio, ma anche verso i passeggeri, in base alle diverse nazionalità e posizione.
La Compagnia propone un parere legale di un autorevole studio legale come parametro di liquidazione dei danni, eppure adeguandosi allo stesso e/o disapplicandolo a piacimento, dimostrandone la inadeguatezza e non vincolatività, poiché i parametri sono privi di alcun riferimento ad un dato oggettivo (es. danno tabellare), obiettività e logica, se non quella del risparmio e della contrattazione commerciale (dimostrando in ogni dove di volersi avvantaggiare della propria posizione “forte” nella negoziazione), a seconda di chi si trovi nella posizione di danneggiato, in quale momento e da chi la transazione venga conclusa, etc. etc.;
In sostanza la Costa vorrebbe farci credere di aver stimato con diligenza ed obiettività i parametri risarcitori della propria offerta, e, tenuto conto dell’alto numero delle persone coinvolte, aver deciso per una scelta di liquidazione “indifferenziata” ed “uguale per Tutti”, arrivando a definire positivamente la transazione con l’80% delle persone a bordo.
I documenti però dimostrano esattamente il contrario, in senso di mancanza di buona fede ed imparzialità nelle offerte da parte di Costa SpA, giocando sempre a carte coperte e applicando parametri di liquidazione, non in base al danno subito dalla parte ovvero, come proclamato, in base ad un affidabile parere legale, ma bensì, come dimostreremo di seguito, in base alla propria “forza” di imporre all’altra parte le proprie INIQUE condizioni.
Facciamo solo qualche esempio:
DANNI PUNITIVI: Molte altre persone lese, e tra questi I NOSTRI ASSISTITI per i quali abbiamo proposto la istanza di sequestro, hanno ritenuto equo invece stimare il danno da essi subito derogando al principio, peraltro non scritto, vigente nel nostro ordinamento secondo cui l’ammontare il risarcimento dei danni debba avere una mera funzione riparatoria, ben potendosi – in piena conformità con gli obiettivi dell’ordine pubblico e di promozione della tutela dei diritti fondamentali
Sensational elements come from the
papers filed by Costa Crociere SpA, during the examination of the
application for seizure of the ship COSTA DIADEMA, given by the
pool “Justice for the Concordia”, about 30 Italian law firms –
including our own – they are made in the judgment criminal charges
against Schettino in progress in Grosseto. Costa, to avoid the risk
of seizure, reveals the background of the payments so far accorded
to members of the crew and passengers and emerge with all evidence
of the discriminatory criteria used by the company in compensation
for the members of their crew, but also to passengers , according
to different nationality and location. The Company offers a legal
opinion of an influential law firm as a parameter of liquidated
damages, and yet at the same time adapting and / or not Using it at
will, demonstrating the inadequacy and non-binding, because the
parameters are devoid of any reference to an objective (eg . give
tabular), objectivity and logic, if not that of the savings for Costa and
commercial contracting (showing everywhere they want to take
advantage of their “strong” position in the negotiation), depending
on who is in the position of damaged, at which time and by whom the
transaction is completed, etc.. etc..; In essence, the Costa would
make us believe an estimated with care and objectivity compensatory
parameters of its bid, and, considering the high number of people
involved, having decided on a choice of liquidation
“undifferentiated” and “equal for all”, come to define positively
the transaction with 80% of the people on board. The documents,
however, show exactly the opposite, in the sense of lack of good
faith and fairness in bids by Costa SpA, always playing his best
cards and applying parameters liquidation, not according to the
damage suffered by the party or, as proclaimed in the basis of a
reliable legal advice, but rather, as will be shown below,
according to their “strength” on the other party to impose its
unfair conditions. Let’s see just a few examples: • A settlement
liquidations from € 11,000.00 to go all inclusive (pecuniary and
non-pecuniary) of the initial passengers (who have agreed after a
media campaign induction unprecedented and that, probably in good
faith or because they had not the strength to do anything else,
have grudgingly accepted), the latest receipts in favor of
passengers who have been waiting or have turned to some lawyer,
produced in the third dvd for about 27000.00 to 30000.00 that is
almost three times the initial amount, in some cases it has been
noticed liquidations much higher, even of 150,000.00 euro in favor
of children, and not having full knowledge of the positions you can
only hypothesize a quid pluris for injury, but are not documented
at all. This is therefore quite clearly a mere bargaining, those who has
waited and has “pulled” on the price, Costa cleared up to three
times the initial parameter, then waiting 2-3 years you will get to
10 times as much?! A trading company so that evaluates objectively
the criteria compensatory, because after just a year pays three
times what he originally proposed (and “fact” to accept most of the
passengers who did not want or could not wait and / or consult a
lawyer ) instead to get back to a civil court?; • La Costa has
always refused to ns. assisted, and never offered a down payment,
the proposals (if any, and not even in all cases beyond the initial
11 thousand) were made only ever settled and, with waives of any
further claims by damaging: take it or leave; • French passengers,
however, no one knows why, appear to be the only ones to have had
ALL liquidation of € 9,000.00 (11 thousand and why not?) On account
of the sum due; • significant settlements are also to employees,
for example, one of the officers in command on the night of the
sinking (and co-defendant who does not appear to have had injuries)
receive an allowance of more than € 23 thousand (€ 18 thousand as
well as about to contractual indemnities, thus getting about 40
thousand euro) more or less the same as compared to other officers
and a large number of Italians embarked; repeats itself, without
initiating any litigation, one of the co-responsible for the
sinking are 23 thousand Euros for moral and material damages (not
you know for which prevalence criterion than 11,000 imposed on the
vast majority of passengers); • According to the unacceptable
methods of evaluation of the French, though, moral damages, for the
same event, vary, and many more, depending on the nationality of
their employees; Indian crew recognizes only € 933.00 ($ 1,198.09
), ie about 23 times less than another employee Italian, one of the
officers which moreover is co-responsible for the event, having
proposed a plea bargain in a criminal court. And so, to go up, we
see approximately € 3,500.00 for the crew members Filipinos and
Indonesians (4,500 USD), of which, however, stands the helmsman
Indonesia which went € 12,168.47, up to 15,000.00 euro on average
for the Italians, to reach € 33,594.00 for a crew boarded Italian,
it even seems that many have not demanded anything. It is obvious
that we can clearly speak of a SETUP transaction for those who want
to keep working and not in the condition to dictate the terms of
compensation. • It ‘obvious fact that the parameter applied by
COSTA to all offers for damages, is not that the study represents
insurance companies P & I, but rather only that of their
bargaining power by requiring employees “base” and to undergo less
“strong “a transaction 20-30 times lower than that paid to one of
the officers in command of Italian, whose pecuniary damage, do not
know why, it is obviously much more than that of an Indian sailor.
• The same holds for the customers of the Coast: For passengers
“base” moral damage was liquidated on average 1/3 of what, with
greater tenacity, other passengers got more determined and / or
with more resources, with transactions closed in the last two
months, almost 30 thousand euro. PUNITIVE DAMAGES: Many other
people injured, among them OUR ASSISTED for which we have proposed
the application of seizure, they considered it fair instead assess
the damage suffered by them as contrary to the principle, which is
not written in force in our legal system according to which ‘
amount of damages should have a mere function restorative well
being able to – in full compliance with the objectives of public
policy and the promotion of the protection of fundamental
rights
la discriminazione mi sembra l’unico elemento costante in questa storia!!!! e temo, viste le prime condanne, l’aspetto corruttivo della vicenda…è abbastanza chiaro come le parti tendano al risparmio in termini di tempo ed economici…a discapito dei danni che la vicenda ha comportato…vediamo…vediamo…
We do have a very active blog and a facebook page also, You should give us the refer to your blog, so we could check it and link to our one
The newest cruise ship of Costa Croicere should bring the company back as a leader in Mediterranean cruises. Also should bring back the confidence to the travelers and cruise fans. Not sure how the compensations will bring back the passengers who died in the accident with Concordia, but definitely should have some.