| | White Paper on environmental liability |
| | 0,25 | | MB |
| | 56 | | stron |
| | 330 | | ID | Directorate-General for the Environment, European Commission |
| | 2003 | | rok |
| | CONTENTS |
| | Foreword 5 |
| | Executive summary 7 |
| | Annex 9 |
| | 1. Introduction 11 |
| | 1.1. The aim of this White Paper 11 |
| | 1.2. The structure of the White Paper 11 |
| | 1.3. Background and institutional context 11 |
| | 1.3.1. The Green Paper on remedying environmental damage 11 |
| | 1.3.2. The position of the European Parliament 11 |
| | 1.3.3. The opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 11 |
| | 1.3.4. Commission’s decision for a White Paper 12 |
| | 1.3.5. Member States’ positions 12 |
| | 1.3.6. The consultation process 12 |
| | 2. What is environmental liability? 13 |
| | 2.1. The aim of environmental liability 13 |
| | 2.2. The types of environmental damage for which liability is suited 13 |
| | 3. The case for an EC environmental liability regime and its expected effects 14 |
| | 3.1. Implementing the key environmental principles of the EC Treaty 14 |
| | 3.2. Ensuring decontamination and restoration of the environment 14 |
| | 3.3. Boosting the implementation of EC environmental legislation 14 |
| | 3.4. Bringing about better integration 14 |
| | 3.5. Improving the functioning of the internal market 15 |
| | 3.6. Expected effects 15 |
| | 4. Possible features of an EC environmental liability regime 16 |
| | 4.1. No retroactivity 16 |
| | 4.2. The scope of the regime 16 |
| | 4.2.1. Damage to be covered 16 |
| | 4.2.2. Activities to be covered 17 |
| | 4.3. The type of liability, the defences to be allowed and the burden of proof 18 |
| | 4.4. Who should be liable? 19 |
| | 4.5. Criteria for different types of damage 19 |
| | 4.5.1. Biodiversity damage 19 |
| | 4.5.2. Contaminated sites 20 |
| | 4.5.3. Traditional damage 21 |
| | 4.5.4. The relation with the product liability directive 21 |
| | 4.6. Ensuring effective decontamination and restoration of the environment 21 |
| | 4.7. Access to justice 21 |
| | 4.7.1. ‘Two-tier approach’: the State should be responsible in the first place 22 |
| | 4.7.2. Urgent cases (injunctions, costs of preventive action) 22 |
| | 4.7.3. Ensuring sufficient expertise and avoiding unnecessary costs 22 |
| | 4.8. The relation with international conventions 23 |
| | 4.9. Financial security 23 |
| | 5. Different options for Community action 25 |
| | 5.1. Community accession to the Lugano Convention 25 |
| | 5.2. A regime for transboundary damage only 25 |
| | 5.3. Member States’ action guided by a Community recommendation 26 |
| | 5.4. A Community directive 26 |
| | 5.5. Liability sector-wise, namely in the area of biotechnology 26 |
| | 6. Subsidiarity and proportionality 28 |
| | 7. The overall economic impact of environmental liability at EC level 29 |
| | 8. Conclusion 31 |
| | Annexes 33 |
| | 1. Study of civil liability systems for remedying environmental damage 33 |
| | 2. Economic aspects of liability and joint compensation systems for remedying environmental |
| | damage 37 |
| | 3. Liability for ecological damage and assessment of ecological damage 46 |
| | 4. Liability for contaminated sites 49 |
| | 5. History and summary contents of the Lugano Convention 52 |