The European Commission has proposed introducing a right for citizens to claim compensation for health damage caused by breaches of industrial plants’ pollution permits | Denis Charlet/AFP via Getty Images
When Farida T. sued the French state arguing that her bronchitis and her daughter’s asthma attacks were caused by air pollution, she ran into a major hurdle.
The long-term resident of a department northeast of Paris could not prove a direct link between local air pollution levels and the illnesses, leading a local court to rule against her in 2019, citing insufficient evidence.
That burden of proof has made lawsuits like Farida T.'s — only identified by an initial under French legal rules — almost impossible to win in the EU; most people don't even bother to file them.
But that could soon change — at least for a subset of cases linked to pollution from industrial installations that lawyers and NGOs say could pave the way to broader efforts to hold polluters accountable.
In its revised rules on industrial emissions presented in April, the European Commission proposed introducing a right for citizens to claim compensation for health damage caused by breaches of industrial plants’ pollution permits. The revised EU rules would apply to over 50,000 of the largest industrial installations across the bloc, from steelworks to meat-processing plants.
The proposal reverses the burden of proof: Plant operators and relevant authorities will have to prove that their pollution breach is not at the root of the claimant’s health issues.
That’s “really, really crucial,” said Bellinda Bartolucci, a senior lawyer at legal charity ClientEarth.
“If you’re suffering from cancer or any other health damage, you actually only need to demonstrate sufficiently that the breach [of a permit] could have caused this damage. It is then up to the operator to prove that the breach had nothing to do with the harm,” she said.
The proposal — which still needs to survive negotiations between EU institutions — represents a historic step toward standardizing legal redress for the impact of pollution, according to lawyers and campaigners.
It is “completely new” and “can change quite a lot,” said Christian Schaible, policy manager on industrial production at the European Environmental Bureau, an NGO.
The reversal is likely to freak out the industry, which “will find it as difficult to disprove as claimants have traditionally found it to prove,” said Maria Lee, a law professor at University College London. Politico - link - the brilliant Antonia Zimmermann - link - more like this (EU) - link - more like this (lifecycle responsibility) - link - more like this (France) - link - more like this (EU) - link
No comments:
Post a Comment