Introduction

Matrix organization

Mergers by absorption

Risks related to the expansion of the scope of criminal liability of legal entities

Validity conditions

Proof of delegation

Exemption from individual liability of delegator

Attribution of offense to legal entity

Delegations of authority

Criminal risk management within business organizations

Complicity in crimes against humanity

Breaches of secrecy

Personal data breaches

Theft

Extortion

Blackmail

Fraud

Misappropriation

Receiving/concealment of unlawfully obtained property (recel)

Attacks on automated data processing systems

Money laundering

Misappropriation by public official (concussion)

Corruption and influence peddling

Unlawful acquisition of an interest

Favoritism

Forgery and use of forgeries

Violation of Criminal Code

Offenses under the Monetary and Financial Code

Offenses under the Commercial Code

Environmental Code violations

Offenses arising from other codes

Types of offenses

Offenses under the Criminal Code, the Commercial Code, or the Environmental Code, Criminal procedure

White Collar Crime (en cours)

Damage caused to the environment can be remedied based on different rules included in the Environmental Code and the Civil Code .
First, the Environmental Code allows environmental protection associations approved under Article L. 141-1, which primarily work for the protection of the environment concerning acts causing direct or indirect harm to the collective interests they aim to defend (Article …

Reparation of environmental damage

Damage caused to the environment can be remedied based on different rules included in the Environmental Code and the Civil Code .

First, the Environmental Code allows environmental protection associations approved under Article L. 141-1, which primarily work for the protection of the environment concerning acts causing direct or indirect harm to the collective interests they aim to defend (Article L. 141-2 of the Environmental Code)  and local authorities and their groups concerning acts causing direct or indirect harm to the territory over which they exercise their competencies (Article L. 142-4 of the Environmental Code)  to bring a civil action to obtain compensation for damage resulting from non-compliance with regulations intended to protect the environment . Articles L. 160-1 and following then set the conditions under which, in application of the polluter-pays principle, damages listed in Article L. 161-1 caused to the environment by an operator are repaired, with Article L. 162-1 excluding that a person who is a victim of damage resulting from environmental harm or an imminent threat of such damage can seek compensation on this basis. Article L. 162-8 specifies that remedial measures must eliminate any risk of serious harm to human health, taking into account the existing or planned use of the damaged site at the time of the damage. These measures aim, according to Article L. 162-9, to “restore natural resources and their ecological services to their initial state and eliminate any risk of serious harm to human health.” The initial state refers to that “at the time of the damage, which would have existed if the environmental damage had not occurred, estimated using the best available information.” The restoration provided for by Article L. 162-9 does not, however, exclude compensation under ordinary law that may be sought, notably, by the authorized associations referred to in Article L. 142-2 .

The Civil Code has included provisions specific to the reparation of ecological damage since the Law of 8 August 2016 for the recovery of biodiversity, nature, and landscapes . The inclusion of these provisions follows the Erika case, during which the Court of Cassation recognized the existence of pure ecological damage, which it defined as “the direct or indirect harm caused to the environment resulting from the offense” and its independent reparation, benefiting several local authorities and an environmental protection association . Enshrining this case law, Law 2016-1087 inserted into the Civil Code an entire chapter dedicated to the reparation of ecological damage, which requires any responsible person (Art. 1246) to repair the non-negligible harm to the elements or functions of ecosystems or the collective benefits derived by humans from the environment (Art. 1247) . The mere existence of an offense under the Environmental Code is not sufficient to establish the existence of such harm; damage must be observed and characterized . Furthermore, a fault related to this damage must be demonstrated. In particular, if a leak in a bottling plant, causing a flow of water mixed with chlorine, leads to abnormal fish mortality and constitutes significant harm to the environment, but this leak results from the rupture of a pipeline element due to an inherent defect, and the company responsible for its replacement installed it without having manufactured or detected the defect, which only revealed itself in use, this company cannot be held responsible for the offense of willful pollution, in the absence of fault on its part causing the pollution. Similarly, the company operating this bottling plant cannot be held at fault if the chlorine product leak is accidental and its employees followed the appropriate procedures: on the day of the discharge, they poured disinfectant products into the new pipelines connecting the source to the plant, checked for the presence of these products upstream and downstream of the regulator, and then left the products in place. The next day, as soon as they were informed of the accidental discharge, a technician immediately set the station to manual mode to stop any discharge into the river .

Article 1247 of the Civil Code was declared consistent with the Constitution “as long as it neither aims nor has the effect of limiting the compensation that can be granted to individuals who suffer harm due to environmental damage” , since the compensation for ecological damage occurs in addition to the compensation for personal harm to authorized associations .

According to Article 1249 of the Civil Code, the reparation of ecological damage is primarily carried out in kind. However, if reparation in kind is impossible, the judge may order the perpetrator of the damage to pay damages, allocated to environmental restoration . The judge, obliged to ensure full reparation of the ecological damage, uses the most appropriate method to assess the compensation in a sovereign manner, especially when the perpetrator of the damage has not requested any expertise and has not relied on any other specific calculation method .

The action for reparation of ecological damage is open to any person with standing and interest to act, such as the State, the French Biodiversity Office, local authorities, as well as public institutions and certain approved associations whose purpose is the protection of the environment (Art. 1248 Civil Code). The admissibility of reasonable measures aimed at preventing or stopping ecological damage, requested by local authorities, is assessed in light of the concept of “concerned territory.” This concept does not exclude that other territories may also be affected by the same ecological damage, but requires each authority to demonstrate that the ecological damage specifically impacts its own territory, in order to justify its interest to act. Thus, climate change, which affects the entire planet and impacts all territories indiscriminately, is not sufficient to characterize ecological damage specifically affecting the territory of a local authority  .

Furthermore, the action for reparation of ecological damage must be brought within ten years from the day the holder of the action knew or should have known of the manifestation of the ecological damage (Art. 2226-1 Civil Code).

CA Riom, 10 April 2024, LawLex202400003137JBJ, considering that the actions undertaken, whether based on the articles specific to environmental law or on the ordinary law liability of the Civil Code, require proof of a reparable harm and a fault committed in relation to the harm.

CA Riom, 10 April 2024, LawLex202400003137JBJ.

CC, 5 February 2021, LawLex202300008459JBJ.

Cass. crim., 25 January 2022, LawLex202300008323JBJ.

CA Riom, 20 September 2023, LawLex202400005676JBJ.

Cass. crim., 4 April 2023, LawLex202300008321JBJ.

CA Paris, 18 June 2024, LawLex202400004578JBJ.

On standing to sue, See Cass. crim., 25 September 2012, LawLex201400000335JBJ.

Cass. crim., 29 June 2021, LawLex202300008322JBJ; CA Riom, 10 April 2024, LawLex202400003137JBJ, requiring proof of a reparable harm and a fault related to the harm.

Cass. crim., 22 March 2016, LawLex202300001324JBJ.

Law No 2016-1087 of 8 August 2016 for the recovery of biodiversity, nature, and landscapes, OJ of 9 August 2016.

Cass. crim., 25 September 2012, LawLex201400000335JBJ.

Cass. crim., 28 May 2019, LawLex202300008487JBJ; CA Paris, 18 June 2024, LawLex202400004578JBJ; CA Nancy, 1 July 2024, LawLex202400005677JBJ.

White Collar Crime (en cours)

223. Reparation of environmental damage

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

223. Reparation of environmental damage

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise