Harmonization of Criminal Environmental Liability throughout the EU

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Rice
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 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.


2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Anstee-Wedderburn

AbstractThe adoption of the EU Environmental Liability Directive (Directive 2004/35/EC) ("ELD") was fraught with controversy. The controversy was perhaps not surprising given that the Commission estimates the ELD will cost around 1.5 billion to implement2 and that it represents one of the EU's most far-reaching environmental policies adopted to date. This article provides an overview of the key concepts of the ELD, and then considers the status of implementation of the ELD and some of the differences in approach to implementation in respect of some of the key concepts that have so far arisen in the UK, France, Germany and Spain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document