Abstract
Although never addressed per se, historical pollution is tackled in the French legal system by the national “Contaminated Land Regime”. Environmental law is the masterpiece of this system: industrial facilities are operated under the control of the administrative authority that may at any moment impose and enforce clean-up procedures for soil, water, and waste pollution. Under the regulatory regime, the last operator of a contaminated site is generally liable for the remediation of historical pollution. Liability under the regulatory regime shapes liability under Private and Criminal law. On the one hand, the last operator of an industrial site may be liable for losses and damages caused to third parties by historical contamination : in this case, the last operator may not oppose any defence to third parties, but is entitled to bring a civil claim against the previous operator who did not disclose the historical pollution of the site. On the other hand, the last operator who fails to comply with legislative or administrative prescriptions may be also liable under criminal law. Moreover, when historical pollution causes risks for or damage to the environment or human health, misdemeanours may also apply alongside environmental offences and offences against persons. In the French legal system, the assignment of liability for historical pollution is thus as effective as the risk of vicarious liability is high.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Many scientists investigating the climatic, biological, and geochemical markers of human activity (Crutzen 2002) are now using the term “Anthropocene” to suggest that the era since the Industrial Revolution should be recognized as a distinct geological epoch to the “Holocene”. For a comprehensive panorama of the challenges that the concept of Anthropocene raises in the legal field, see Viñuales 2016.
- 2.
See the Preamble to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
- 3.
The gap between the scientific assessment of the harmful effects of asbestos and its legal ban was essentially attributable in France to the lobbying of the Comité Permanente Amiante. This Committee was made up of scientists, representatives of firms in the industry, public officers, and trade unionists.
- 4.
Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 14 April 2015, case no. 14-85.333.
- 5.
See para. 13 of Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. This is also the case for CO2 emissions, which are excluded from the discussion in this research.
- 6.
Association Robin des Bois (2016) has recently mapped all the kinds of widespread and historical pollution present across the whole territory.
- 7.
See Cour de Cassation, Chambre Criminelle, 14 April 2015, case no. 14-85.334 (Jussieu Faculty case) and 6 June 2016 (Amisol case, not yet published).
- 8.
This is the Commission d’indemnisation des victimes d’infractions (CIVI), which sits before every Tribunal de Grand Instance.
- 9.
Lead interferes with a variety of body processes and is toxic to many organs and tissues including the heart, bones, intestines, kidneys, and reproductive and nervous systems. It interferes with the development of the nervous system and is therefore particularly toxic to children, causing potentially permanent learning and behaviour disorders.
- 10.
Appeal Court of Douai, 2 October 2003 (Lienhard 2003, p. 2571).
- 11.
Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 30 October 2007, case no. 06-89.365.
- 12.
The clean-up of the areas inside the site was undertaken by a private company which took the site on with the aim of creating a centre for waste treatment and recycling: a substantial part of the brownfield is now a laboratory where scientists study the consequences of pollution, especially soil pollution (Aligon and Douay 2011). The Metaleurop scandal would stimulate the legislature to pass important amendments aiming to strengthen the prevention and compensation for damage in the field of “technological risks” (Loi n 2003-699 du 30 juillet 2003 relative à la prévention des risques technologiques et naturels et à la réparation des dommages). See below, Sect. 4.1.1.
- 13.
Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 21 September 2010, case no. 09-86258. For more details on the characterization of the offence of “risks caused to persons” in cases of historical pollution, see Sect. 7.2 below. The assignment of criminal liability for industrial historical pollution has contributed to this phenomenon becoming a public policy priority, as highlighted by Decocq (2010) in the report of the working group on brownfields and historical pollution instituted by the Lille Council.
- 14.
See the dossier on the website of the NGO Générations Futures (www.generations-futures.fr).
- 15.
Administrative Appeal Court of Nantes, 26 December 2014.
- 16.
European Court of Justice, 4 September 2014, Commission v. France, case C-237/12.
- 17.
The textual research was carried out on the Environment, Criminal, Civil, Health, and Rural Codes published on the public database Legifrance.fr. The adjective “historical” is associated with “emissions” but only when it is a matter of issuing additional quotas for greenhouse gas emissions (Art. R 229-11 of the Environment Code).
- 18.
See below, Sect. 6.1.
- 19.
Ministry of the Environment, Circulaire du 26/05/11 relative à la cessation d’activité d’une installation classée chaîne de responsabilités—défaillance des responsables. Under French law, a Circular is an order addressed to the administrative authorities.
- 20.
See Sect. 5.3 below.
- 21.
Website of the Ministère de l’Environnement, de l’Energie et de la Mer, BASOL database, http://basol.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/.
- 22.
Website of the Ministère de l’Environnement, de l’Energie et de la Mer, BASIAS database, http://www.georisques.gouv.fr/dossiers/basias.
- 23.
Décret impérial du 15 octobre 1810 relatif aux Manufactures et Ateliers qui répandent une odeur insalubre ou incommode.
- 24.
Fressoz (2012) describes this process as a reorganization of “environmental illegalisms” (Foucault). In other worlds, for the benefit of industry, the 1810 decree would have transformed the threats against the environment, from illegalism against “common goods” (environment and public health) into illegalism against “goods” (property). The historian Geneviève Massard-Guilbaud (2010) related an example that clearly describes this assumption: whereas under the Ancien régime, a law-breaker who burnt kelp outside of the prescribed period was liable to a 300 lb fine and corporal punishment in the event of reoffending, under the 1810 regime the owner of a soda plant with the relevant authorization, which discharged production waste into a river, runs no risk of criminal charges. The 1810 decree paved the way for the “commodification” of the environment, which permitted the accomplishment in France of the “Great transformation” described by Karl Polanyi (1944).
- 25.
Law no. 1976-663 of 19 July 1976 (Loi n 76-663 du 19 juillet 1976 relative aux installations classées pour la protection de l’environnement).
- 26.
English translation published on the website Legifrance.fr.
- 27.
Arts. L 514-4 et seq. of the Environment Code.
- 28.
Art. L 515-7 of the Environment Code.
- 29.
Art. L 515-14 of the Environment Code.
- 30.
Art. L 515-43 of the Environment Code.
- 31.
Arts. L 515-28 et seq. of the Environment Code. EU Directive 2010/75/EU on Industrial Emissions (IED Directive) replaced EU Directive 2008/1/CE on Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC Directive).
- 32.
Arts. L 515-32 et seq. of the Environment Code. See Directives 82/501/EEC (“Seveso I”), 96/82/EC (“Seveso II”) and 2012/18/EU (“Seveso III”).
- 33.
Article L 241-1 of the Environment Code establishes an authorization regime for all installations not appearing in the ICPE nomenclature and resulting in the drawing of surface or underground water (“Water regime”).
- 34.
Law no. 2003-699 of 30 July 2003 (Loi n°2003-699 du 30 juillet 2003 relative à la prévention des risques technologiques et naturels et à la réparation des dommages). This rule applies only to authorizations delivered after 2003.
- 35.
Law no. 2013-619 of 16 July 2013 (Loi n°2013-619 du 16 juillet 2013 portant diverses dispositions d’adaptation au droit de l’Union européenne dans le domaine du développement durable).
- 36.
Decree no. 2012-34 of 11 January 2012 (Ordonnance n°2012-34 du 11 janvier 2012 portant simplification, réforme et harmonisation des dispositions de police administrative et de police judiciaire du code de l’environnement).
- 37.
Law no. 2014-366 of 24 March 2014 (Loi n°2014-366 du 24 mars 2014 pour l’accès au logement et un urbanisme rénové). See below, Sect. 5.2.
- 38.
Law no. 2008-757 of 1 August 2008 (Loi n°2008-757 du 1er août 2008 relative à la responsabilité environnementale et à diverses dispositions d’adaptation au droit communautaire dans le domaine de l’environnement).
- 39.
The Environmental Charter was integrated in French Constitutional Law in 2005 (Loi constitutionnelle n°2005-205 du 1er mars 2005 relative à la Charte de l’environnement). The Charter recognizes fundamental rights and obligations on the protection of the environment.
- 40.
Art. L 160-1 of the Environment Code.
- 41.
Art. L 161-1 of the Environment Code.
- 42.
The subjective scope of the Environmental Liability regime is broader than the “authorization regime.”
- 43.
Art. R 162-1 of the Environment Code.
- 44.
See Arts. L 162-3 et seq. of the Environment Code.
- 45.
See Arts. L 162-6 et seq. of the Environment Code.
- 46.
For more details on primary, complementary, and compensatory remedial measures, see annexe II of EU Directive 2004/35/CE.
- 47.
Art. L 161-2, n. 7 of the Environment Code. This article specifies that in case of diffuse pollution, the administrative authority can establish a causal link between the damage and the activities of several operators.
- 48.
Art. L 161-4 of the Environment Code.
- 49.
Art. L 161-4 of the Environment Code.
- 50.
English translation published on the website Legifrance.fr.
- 51.
Art. L 544 of the Civil Code.
- 52.
Art. L 173-1 of the Environment Code.
- 53.
Art. L 173-3 of the Environment Code.
- 54.
Art. L 173-2 of the Environment Code.
- 55.
Art. L 514-11 of the Environment Code.
- 56.
Pursuant to Art. L 173-7 of the Environment Code, when the above-mentioned offences are committed by a natural person, complementary sanctions may also include: (a) the publication of the decision; (b) the confiscation of the proceeds of the crime; (c) the prohibition from exercising professional activity related to the offence. Complementary sanctions applicable to legal persons are mentioned below in Sect. 8.
- 57.
Art. L 173-3 of the Environment Code. In this article, amended in 2012, the echo of Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law is pretty clear.
- 58.
Environmental offences and offences against persons may apply also to the owner of the site in case the pollution is not caused by an ICPE.
- 59.
Ordonnance n°2012-34 du 11 janvier 2012 portant simplification, réforme et harmonisation des dispositions de police administrative et de police judiciaire du code de l’environnement.
- 60.
The French Criminal Code provides also for the offence of poisoning (Art. L 221-5). Defined as “the act of endangering the life of another through the use or administration of substances by whose very nature may cause death,” this offence is punishable by up to thirty years of criminal detention, in addition to life imprisonment when the offence is committed under certain circumstances. Despite its potential, poisoning is unlikely to be applicable to acts of pollution, which are in most cases involuntary. The Cour de Cassation in fact affirmed that “criminal poisoning can only be characterized if the author acted with the intention to cause death, a factor shared by poisoning and other crimes that intentionally threaten lives” (Cour de Cassation, Chambre Criminelle, 18 June 2003, case no. 02-85.199).
- 61.
See above, Sect. 4.1.1.
- 62.
The Conseil d’Etat held that the clean-up obligation arising from the 1976 regime applies also to the operator of sites which, albeit already having closed, would have been submitted to the ICPE Regime (Conseil d’Etat, 20 March 1991, Rodanet, application no. 83.776; Conseil d’Etat, 16 November 1998, Compagnie des bases lubrifiantes, application no. 182816).
- 63.
See Arts. L 214-1 et seq. of the Environment Code. Under the water regime, in case the operator is not identifiable, the owner of the contaminated land may also be liable for remediation.
- 64.
See Art. L 541-3 of the Environment Code. As we will discuss below, under the waste regime, the persons liable for remediation are the “waste producer” and the “waste holder”.
- 65.
There are no regulatory or legal value limits for contaminants in soil or groundwater. However, as we underlined above, several technical guidelines have been issued by the Ministry of the Environment in the context of the “National Methodology”.
- 66.
An exception was introduced in 2012 in the Ordonnance 2012-7 du 5 janvier 2012 transposing Directive IED: according to European legislation the installations classified as IED installations may present a “baseline report” either at the moment of the issue of the authorization or at the moment of the first control provided during the operation. The baseline report fixes the t 0 of the operation and the condition for the rehabilitation of the site (see Arts. L 515-28 et seq. of the Environment Code).
- 67.
Art. L 171-8 of the Environment Code.
- 68.
Conseil d’Etat, 8 July 2005, Alusuisse-Lonz-France, application no. 247.976.
- 69.
See below, Sect. 7.
- 70.
Conseil d’Etat, 29 March 2010, Communauté de communes de Fécamp, application no. 318.886.
- 71.
Conseil d’Etat, 21 February 1997, Wattelez, application no. 16.078.
- 72.
Conseil d’Etat, 6 December 2012, Sté Arcelomittal France, application no. 333.977.
- 73.
Art. L 512-17 of the Environment Code.
- 74.
Art. L 512-21 of the Environment Code.
- 75.
See Décret n°2015-1004 du 18 août 2015 portant application de l’article L 512-21 du Code de l’environnement.
- 76.
Conseil d’Etat, 8 July 2005, Alusuisse-Lonz-France, application no. 247.976.
- 77.
This article implements the waste regime provided for in Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on waste.
- 78.
Conseil d’Etat, 1 March 2013, applications nos. 348.912/354.188.
- 79.
Conseil d’Etat, 26 July 2011, Wattelez II, applications nos. 328.651. The Cour de Cassation (11 July 2012, case no. 11-10.478) confirmed the principle of the subsidiary liability of the owner of a site where waste has been illegally collected. However, its position appears more severe to the extent it allocates to the site owner the burden of proof of its diligence.
- 80.
Art. L 214-3-1 of the Environment Code.
- 81.
Our translation of the French (s’il est démontré qu’il a fait preuve de négligence ou qu’il n’est pas étranger à cette pollution).
- 82.
Hypothetical Scenario 1: Agent A owns land and contaminates it over a long period of time. No damage nor threats to human health occur as consequences of the pollution.
- 83.
Art. L 556-3 of the Environment Code. See also the Ministry of the Environment Circulars of 26 May 2011 and 8 February 2007.
- 84.
This distinction was proposed for the first time by the Conseil d’Etat in Société des Produits Chimiques Ugine-Kuhlmann, 11 April 1986. See recently Conseil d’Etat, 8 July 2005, Alusuisse Lonza France, application no. 247.976 and Conseil d’Etat, 23 March 2011, SA Progalva, application no. 325.618.
- 85.
Boivin and Defradas (2013, p. 116) highlight that administrative judges tend to limit the principle of common liability sometimes to a charge against the de facto operator (see, for example, Conseil d’Etat, 21 February 1997, Wattelez, application no. 160.787), and sometimes to the charge against the de jure operator (see, for example, Conseil d’Etat, 6 December 2012, Arcelormittal France, application no. 333.977).
- 86.
Cour Administrative d’Appel of Douai, 2 March 2006, Societé BM Chimie.
- 87.
See Art. L 514-20 of the Environment Code, as amended by Law no. 2014-366 of 24 March 2014.
- 88.
Cour de Cassation, 3rd Chambre civile, 4 November 2004, case n 03-12.499. This is the only case listed in the website Legifrance.fr in which the term “pollution historique” is used by civil judges in the sense accepted by this research (accessed in June 2016).
- 89.
Hypothetical Scenario 2: Agent A owns land and contaminates it. The land is subsequently purchased by Agent B. No damage nor threats to human health occur as consequences of the pollution.
- 90.
The Cour de Cassation recognized that the strict liability does not constitute a disproportionate breach of property law as protected by Art. 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. See Cour de Cassation, 3rd Chambre civile, 23 October 2003, case no. 02-16.303.
- 91.
Art. L 112-16 Code de la construction et de l’habitation.
- 92.
Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 1 April 2008, case no. 07-86096.
- 93.
Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 13 January 2015, case no. 13-88183. As Boivin and Defradas (2013, p. 225) highlight, criminal courts assign to the company directors a presumption of negligence in case of failure to comply with environment, hygiene, or security legislation.
- 94.
See Global Compact and ISO 26000.
- 95.
Hypothetical Scenario 3: Agent A owns land and contaminates it. The polluted land is subsequently purchased by Agent B. In the meantime, land contamination results in contamination of groundwater which is regularly used in agriculture.
- 96.
Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 21 September 2010, case no. 09-86.258. See also Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 5 April 2011, case no. 09-83.277.
- 97.
Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 6 October 2009, case no. 09-81.037.
- 98.
Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 4 October 2005, case no. 04-87654.
- 99.
Hypothetical Scenario 4: Agent A owns land and contaminates it. The polluted land is subsequently purchased by Agent B. In the meantime, land contamination results in contamination of groundwater which is regularly used in human nutrition.
- 100.
Hypothetical Scenario 5: Agent A owns land and contaminates it. The polluted land is subsequently purchased by Agent B. There is evidence of a causal link between the pollution and the death or injury of a number of people.
- 101.
As of 31 December 2005, the Perben II Law of 9 March 2004, concerning amendments in line with changes in criminality, extended the criminal liability of legal entities to all offences, with the only exception being deliberate exclusion.
- 102.
See, in particular, Cour de Cassation, Chambre Criminelle, 4 December 2011, case no. 01-80.455, with regard to the offence of pollution provided for in Art. L 432-2 of the Environment Code.
- 103.
Cour de Cassation, Chambre Criminelle, 26 June 2001, case no. 00-83.466.
- 104.
Art. 131-39 of the Criminal Code.
References
Alexandre, A. (2012). Risques environnementaux. Approches juridique et assurantielle Europe et Amérique du Nord. Bruxelles: Bruylant.
Association Robin des Bois. (2016). Atlas. La France Toxique. Arthaud: Paris.
Aligon, D., & Douay, F. (2011). Site Atelier Metaleurop. Synthèse des travaux de recherche réalisés autour de l’ancienne fonderie de Noyelle-Godaut. Rapport ADEME.
Asselaim, J. -C. (2011). Histoire économique de la France du XVIIIe siècle à nos jours. 2. Depuis 1918. Paris: Seuil.
Bausinger, T., Bonnaire, E., & Preub, J. (2007). Exposure assessment of a burning ground for chemical ammunition on the Great War battlefields of Verdun. Science of the Total Environment, 382, 259–271.
Boivin, J.-P. (2010). Pratique du contentieux des installations classées et des carrières. Paris: Éditions Le Moniteur.
Boivin, J.-P., & Defradas, F. (2013). Sites et sols pollués: outils juridiques, méthodologiques et financiers. Paris: Éditions Le Moniteur.
Callewaert, V. (2006) Les assurances contre les atteintes à l’environnement et ses alternatives: une réponse satisfaisante? In G. Viney, & B. Dubuisson (Eds.), Les responsabilités environnementales dans l’espace européen. Bruxelles-Paris: Bruylant-LGDJ.
Cans, C. (Eds.) (2009). La responsabilité environnementale: Prévention, imputation, réparation. Paris: Dalloz.
Cour de Cassation (2014). Le temps.
Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(6867), 23.
d’Ambrosio, L., & Tricot, J., (2016). Panorama en droit pénal. In K. Martin-Chenut, & R. De Quenaudon (Eds.), La RSE saisi par le droit. Perspectives interne et internationale. Paris: Pedone.
d’Ambrosio, L. (2016). L’affaire Eternit: quelles leçons? In K. Martin-Chenut & R. De Quenaudon (Eds.), Développement durable: Mutations ou métamorphoses de la responsabilité?. Paris: Pedone.
Decocq, O. (2010). Mission d’information et d’évaluation friches industrielles et pollution historique. Rapport Friches industrielles et pollutions historiques.
Fressoz, J.-B. (2012). L’Apocalypse Joyeuse. Paris: Seuil.
Guyton, K., et al. (2015). Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. The lancet Oncology, 16, 490–491.
Laurian, L. (2008). Environnemental justice in France. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51, 55–79.
Lascoumes, P. (2011). Une démocratie corruptible. Arrangements, favoritisme et conflits d’intérêts. Paris: Seuil.
Lienhard, A. (2003). Affaire Metaleurope: quand l’intégration des filiales d’un groupe confine-t-elle à la fictivité? Recueil Dalloz, 2571.
Massard-Guilbaud, G. (2010). Histoire de la pollution industrielle en France, 1789–1914. Paris: Éditions EHESS.
Mazade, O. (2013). «Patron voyou»: de la désignation publique à la sanction juridique. Le cas Metaleurop. Champ pénal, 10, 2013.
Mazade, O. (2010). La reconversion des hommes et des territoires. Le cas Metaleurop. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Napoli, P. (2003). La naissance de la police moderne. Pouvoir, normes, société. Paris: La Découverte.
Ost, F. (1999). Le temps du droit. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Pereira, B. (2014). Iso 26000, due diligence, sphère d’influence et droits de l’homme. Revue de l’organisation responsable, 9, 60–75.
Polanyi, K. (1944). La Grande transformation. Paris: Gallimard.
Rousseau, F. (2013). Essai d’une reconfiguration des infractions pénales contre les personnes à l’aune des «scandales sanitaires». Droit pénal, étude n°11.
Saint-Pau, J.-C. (2013). La répression de la destruction de biens environnementaux. In A. Gogorza & R. Ollard (Eds.), La protection pénale de l’environnement. Paris: Éditions Cujas.
Saint-Pau, J. -C. (2012). Les causalités dans la théorie de l’infraction. In Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Jacques-Henry Robert. Paris: LexisNexis.
Thébaud-Mony, A. (2014). La science asservie. Santé publique: les collusions mortifères entre industriels et chercheurs. Paris: La Découverte.
Thébaud-Mony, A. (2008). Travailler peut nuire gravement à votre santé. Paris: La Découverte.
Viñuales, J. (2016). Law and Anthropocene, C-EENRG Working Papers, 2016-4 (pp. 1–72). Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, University of Cambridge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
d’Ambrosio, L. (2017). The Approach to Historical Pollution in France: Remedy, Compensate, and Punish. In: Centonze, F., Manacorda, S. (eds) Historical Pollution. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56937-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56937-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56936-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56937-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)