11. Private law and environmental protection

Author(s):  
Stuart Bell ◽  
Donald McGillivray ◽  
Ole W. Pedersen ◽  
Emma Lees ◽  
Elen Stokes

This chapter focuses on the torts—or civil wrongs—traditionally relied on in environmental litigation: private and public nuisance, trespass, negligence, and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. It discusses and outlines statutory nuisance and various instances of statutory civil liability, some of which go beyond providing remedies for individuals and provide for wider environmental clean-up. Traditionally, private law has attempted to serve the function of controlling environmental damage. However, the chapter shows that the similarity is often superficial; the essential characteristic of private law is to regulate relationships between individuals by the balancing of individual interests. It concludes by briefly considering the EU Environmental Liability Directive, which has some similarities with private law remedies but is primarily an administrative mechanism for environmental remediation in defined situations.

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-15
Author(s):  
Branislav Cepek

The article deals with one of the most important and recent issues of the contemporary law of the Member States and the EU in the field of environment, which is criminal liability for environmental crimes which serves as a tool for promoting environmental protection. Environmental law can be divided into two basic types of environmental liability for damage to the environment and liability for damage. Liability for environmental damage is divided into civil liability for damage as well as liability of the public for ecological damage. A special case is liability for historical damage.The Directive on torts is divided into criminal liability and administrative liability. In this paper, the author focuses on the analysis of the contemporary Czech tort law in the field of biodiversity protection and considers several aspects of this a de lege ferenda issue.


Author(s):  
Vanessa Mak

This concluding chapter asserts that a case can be made for a strong legal pluralist theory of lawmaking in European private law. It takes a discursive approach, focusing on some aspects that require further consideration. The chapter considers how, and to what extent, the regulation of offline transactions is affected by the perceived shift towards legal pluralism. In addition, the chapter assesses which risks are posed to the instrumental-normative framework by political, economic, and social divides in the EU. Finally, the chapter closes with a reflection on the connections that could be made between certain fields such as citizens' rights as workers or in relation to environmental protection, opening up vistas for further research on lawmaking in European private law.


Author(s):  
Karen Hulme

The chapter analyses examples of post-conflict environmental damage and suggests how human rights legal mechanisms could provide vital assistance in their remedy. Environmental remediation in the post-conflict context tends to emanate from environmental obligations, if it is recognized at all. Transitional justice mechanisms and human rights obligations, however, are developing in terms of environmental protection. Environmental damage is, clearly, a human rights issue, especially in the protection of survival resources, such as water and food, as well as health—which are vital in a post-conflict context. Human rights can also help address toxic remnants and natural resource depletion. With the expansion of economic, social, and cultural rights to incorporate environmental dimensions, and even what would traditionally be viewed as pure environmental concerns at times, such a framework could provide strong legal obligations on states to undertake environmental clean-up and restoration—and strong mechanisms to review state actions and ensure environmental remediation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 309-317
Author(s):  
Julie Foulon

As a consequence of increased pressure on environment in Europe and beyond, the extent and variety of forms of environmental damage has broadened widely over the last decades. One key way to tackle this problem is, evidently, to ensure that damage that arise is properly repaired. Whilst provisions to secure environmental liability have been implemented in the EU context through the Environmental Liability Directive, the effectiveness of this Directive is still limited. In France, in order to surpass current impasses, the 2016 Biodiversity Law was recently enacted (adopted on August 8th, 2016), which creates a specific regime in French civil law for remedying ecological damage (defined as damage caused to nature itself). Three years after the introduction of France’s new approach to ecological damage, the present article reflects on the legal innovations and challenges of the reform, and explains how the new regime proceeds to remedy ecological damage. A key challenge here, as will be discussed, is that nature as such has not been recognised as having legal personality under the French legal system, which has traditionally been a key hurdle for securing compensation for environmental loss in the first place under tort law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Badulescu ◽  
Alina Badulescu ◽  
Ramona Simut ◽  
Dorin Bac ◽  
Elena-Ana Iancu ◽  
...  

Designing and implementing relevant and effective environmental policies and fostering green and environmental-friendly approaches and behaviors are constant aims for policy makers all over the world. Concurrently, implementing environmental policies involves significant economic and financial efforts, in order to repair environmental damage and to prevent future negative environmental consequences. How effective are the environmental expenditures and how are they related to the economic growth, i.e. the GDP level, are issues of major concern at a governmental level. In this article we are examining the relation between GDP and environmental expenditure, by using statistical data available for EU economies, for the time period 1995-2013. We found that the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis is supported in most of the EU economies, both for government environmental protection and specialized providers, public and private environmental protection. Further and deeper analyses performed showed different situations for specific countries and even a negative relation between GDP and government environmental protection for specific cases.


Legal Studies ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lee

This paper considers certain proposals made by the European Commission on environmental liability, particularly in its White Paper on Environmental Liability. Civil liability has made a relatively minor contribution to environmental policy in recent decades, given its many well-known shortcomings when applied to environmental problems. Its usefulness, however, is being reassessed, given something of a consensus that traditional forms of regulation are reaching the limits of their effectiveness and that new approaches to environmental law are necessary. This paper will consider how the White Paper would move beyond the limitations of existing civil liability frameworks, in particular the fundamental incompatibility between the interests recognised in English tort law and the interests at stake in environmental protection. The Commission's recent retreat from the more ambitious elements of the White Paper may be a matter of concern.


2019 ◽  
pp. 163-180
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Fisher ◽  
Bettina Lange ◽  
Eloise Scotford

An important feature of environmental law is the creation of statutory schemes that impose liability on those that engage in environmental deleterious activity and/or require them to remediate environmental harm. This chapter discusses three different statutory regimes that exist in UK and EU environmental law which create liabilities, obligations, or provide remedies to address a range of environmentally related problems: statutory nuisance; the contaminated land regime under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act; and the EU Environmental Liability Directive. The chapter begins by providing a brief conceptual overview of different types of statutory liability techniques. Its aim is to give some feeling for both the conceptual complexity and the practical significance of these areas of law.


2005 ◽  
Vol 57 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 177-198
Author(s):  
Dragana Radojevic

The New EU Directive on Environmental Liability provides for the system of liability for damage to the environment provoked by human activity. The Directive further provides for direct application of polluter-pays principles, the concept of environmental damage and a variety of preventive and remedial actions. The underlying principle of the Directive is the establishment of financial liability of the operators whose actions provoke environmental damage or the danger of occurrence of the environmental damage, all with the aim to stimulate such operators to adopt appropriate measures and procedures to diminish of environmental risks and therefore decrease their disposure to the environmental liability. Directive is applicable to the operators of the ?regulated activities?, which includes the majority of industries. Directive is relating only to the future environmental damages occurred after its entry in force. Directive adopts strict liability for the operators of the activities dangerous to the environment applicable to any and all environmental damage, whereas for the operators of all other activities the fault-based liability applies and only in respect to the environmental damage of the ecosystem. Operators are not liable for damage provoked by third party, damage occurred regardless of the implementation of the appropriate protection procedures or damage in case of a force majeure event. Also, operators can waive responsibility invoking the so-called ?state of art defense?, i.e. arguing that the harmful action was considered environmental friendly by the time of its occurrence. Another waiver from the responsibility, the so-called permit defense is possible in case whereof environmental damage is provoked by the action which was made in accordance with the issued permit/state authorization. Directive obliges the operators to inform relevant authorities of environmental damage risks which occur due to the operators? activities, as well as to undertake appropriate measures of control, limitation, security, removal of harmful effects and risk/damage management. Directive defines the preventive measures as the measures instituted in response to an event, action or failure to act which created the threat of environmental damage, which measures aim to prevent or mitigate the consequences of such environmental damage. Directive further defines remedial measures as measures or combination of measures, including risk/damage management and provisional measures, with the aim to revoke, rehabilitate or replace damaged natural resources. Directive recommends to the Member States to encourage the operators to contract appropriate insurances and other financial cover from liability. Bearing in mind the development of environmental liability issue, it is uncertain whether and how will the insurance companies build new insurance policies in alternative to the classical insurance from civil responsibility which is only in small part applicable to the environmental damages. The same can be said for the financial market itself, knowing that the entire success of the Directive depends on the financial capacities of the operators to assume the liabilities introduced by the Directive. Pursuant to the Directive, companies shall have to bear themselves the risks of removal of consequences of environmental damage. We are of opinion that a respectable company cannot afford non-cooperation with the authorities, otherwise it risks refusal of work permits, investigations and inspections, refusal of state loans and other benefits. In the aim of prevention of environmental damage, the company management would need to develop internal rules and regulations on environmental protection and environmental policy of the company. Although we admit that Directive creates some preconditions for efficient and uniform implementation of the environmental protection and the achievement of sustainable development within the EU, we believe that Directive can help the prevention of environmental damage only in combination with corresponding fiscal and administrative privilege given to the companies willing to introduce and apply preventive environmental measures.


2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Faeh

AbstractThe Swiss environmental liability system is based on several provisions in a range of public and civil law statutes. This contribution focuses on the Swiss Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and its central liability provisions. Furthermore, these findings will be compared to other Swiss liability provisions which may also be applicable to environmental damage, followed by a brief discussion on the postponed proposal of a uniform liability system. After an overview of the relevant international agreements, the article will close with a comparison between the Swiss regime and the Directive 2004/35/EC.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document