The precautionary principle and the burden and standard of proof in European and Dutch environmental law

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-131
Author(s):  
Rogier Kegge

This article offers an analysis of the application of the precautionary principle by European courts and the highest Dutch administrative courts in environmental cases. The precautionary principle is one of the leading principles in EU environmental law, but it has no unequivocal meaning. This makes the principle difficult to apply and the allocation of the burden of proof and the level of standard of proof complex matters. In the context of the allocation of the burden of proof, it is essential to make the distinction between the precautionary principle invoked as an obligation or a justification for protective measures. A realistic level of standard of proof is also essential. Without a fair allocation of the burden of proof and a realistic level of standard of proof, either the authorities or the appellants may be exposed to unequal procedural positions and unsolvable evidentiary problems. Analysis of the case law leads to the conclusion that the principle sometimes is misapplied by the Dutch administrative courts.

Author(s):  
Paulo de Bessa Antunes

The problem to be addressed in this article is related to the precautionary principle and its incorporation into the Brazilian law. As it is beknown, this principle has been widely cited by Brazilian case law and it is an important part of the legal and environmental scholarly production. However, it follows that its application has been made fairly randomly, and even so there is no clear and operational definition of its content. The hypothesis being examined is that since the Rio Declaration’s - in its translation into Portuguese - environmental legislation has termed as legal principle, which internationally is an approach, a precautionary measure, as can be seen in both the texts in English and French of the Rio Declaration and other relevant legal instruments. The methodology to be used is the research of the case law and relevant legal rules, as well as the examination of the scholarly production on the subject. As a result, the conclusion is that there is an overuse of the precautionary principle by the Brazilian courts, especially by the Superior Court of Justice and that, in this case, the Federal Supreme Court has played a moderating role in relation to the application of the precautionary principle.


2005 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Pardy

The precautionary principle, developed in international environmental law, is a prospective concept. It can be used to decide what should be allowed to occur in the future. The question addressed in this article is whether, in domestic law, the precautionary principle should be applied retrospectively. Should precautionary behaviour be used as a standard to apply to the past actions of private persons, so as to judge whether those persons have acted legally ? In the civil realm, the answer is « yes ». Applying the precautionary principle in civil cases removes foreseeability requirements, and transforms liability based on fault into strict liability. In the criminal sphere, retrospective application of the precautionary principle is not appropriate. To require precautionary action on the part of an accused in an environmental prosecution transforms strict liability into absolute liability, and creates the potential for criminal punishment in the absence of culpability.


2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 455-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elen Stokes

AbstractThis paper focuses on the meanings attached to the "precautionary principle" in judgments passed down by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the European Community (EC) courts. It speaks to claims that, in response to WTO litigation, the EC courts are beginning to construe the precautionary principle in a manner that more closely resembles obligations arising from the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement). It illustrates that although disparities between interpretations in EC and WTO case law of legitimate precautionary intervention are growing to be less obvious, inconsistencies continue to exist.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 529-542
Author(s):  
Sabrina Röttger-Wirtz

The approval renewal of glyphosate as an active substance for pesticides in the EU has also kept the Court of Justice occupied. Within this line of case law, the Blaise case is the most recent one. In this preliminary reference procedure the Court was asked to review the validity of the Plant Protection Products Regulation 1107/2009, examined against the precautionary principle as benchmark. The case is relevant not only for the questions raised about the Regulation, but also as it sheds a light on the – albeit limited – use of the precautionary principle in the judicial review of EU legislative measure.


2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Gillespie

AbstractThe precautionary principle is one of the most discussed ideas in international environmental law. However, despite over 20 years of dialogue, both its status and its aplication remains uncertain. This article attempts to rectify part of this difficulty by displaying the current state of play on the principle, and how it may be applied to a specific contemporary problem. The selected problem is noise pollution


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document