Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Environmental Liability Directive: Legal Background and Requirements

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Equivalency Methods for Environmental Liability

Abstract

The objective of the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) is to provide a common framework for preventing and remediating certain forms of environmental damage. It complements existing ex ante European Union nature conservation regimes such as the Habitats, Wild Birds, and Water Framework Directives and provides guidance on how to assess damage to protected natural habitats and species. This chapter provides a legal analysis of the ELD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Directive 2004/35/EC, 21.4.2004, OJ 2004 L 143/56.

  2. 2.

    Resp. Directive 79/409/EEG, OJ 1979 L 103/1 and Directive 92/43/EEG, OJ 1992 L 206/7.

  3. 3.

    See European Commission 2010, p. 3 et seq. See also Stevens and Bolton LLP (2013), Table 1 at p. 32.

  4. 4.

    See Case C-417/08, Commission v. United Kingdom (2009) ECR 2009 I-00106 (judgement ECJ of 18 June 2009) and Case C-422/08, Commission v. Austria (2009) ECR 2009 I-00107 (judgement ECJ of 18 June 2009).

  5. 5.

    See e.g. BIO Intelligence Service (2013), p. 21 et seq. and Annex A; Stevens and Bolton LLP (2013), pp. 34–103 and Milieu Ltd. and IUCN (2014), Annex I. See also Goldsmith and Lockhart-Mummery (2013), p. 139 et seq.

  6. 6.

    Milieu Ltd. and IUCN (2014), p. 78 et seq and BIO Intelligence Service (2014), i.e. Tables 1, 3 and 4.

  7. 7.

    In 2010, 16 ELD cases were identified and it was estimates that the total number of ELD cases across the EU was in 2010 around 50. See European Commission (2010), pp. 4–5 and 9–10.

  8. 8.

    See BIO Intelligence Service (2013), p. 96 et seq. See also http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/index.htm under the heading ‘Member State reports on the experience gained in the application of the Directive’.

  9. 9.

    Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ 2000 L327/1.

  10. 10.

    The European Court of Justice ruled in a decision of 13 July 2017 that air pollution as such does not constitute environmental damage covered by the ELD. However, in case airborne elements cause damage tot water, land and protected species and habitats, such damage could come within the scope of the ELD. See ECJ C-129/6, para 41–46.

  11. 11.

    See Article 4(2–4) and Annex IV and V of the ELD.

  12. 12.

    A difference between the 1992 CLC and the ELD is that under the 1992 CLC, interim losses are not recoverable. See IOPC Funds (2017), p. 7. Since many international liability conventions use the same damage definition as the 1992 CLC, most likely interim losses are also not recoverable under these regimes.

  13. 13.

    See further on the difference between these international civil liability conventions and the ELD (Brans 2006), pp. 212–214).

  14. 14.

    See Article 8(3) of the ELD.

  15. 15.

    See Article 8(4)(a) of the ELD.

  16. 16.

    ECJ C-529/15, para. 42.

  17. 17.

    See Article 8(4)(b) of the ELD. Taken the wording of Article 8(3) and (4) of the ELD, Member States may decide to apply above exemptions to both occupational activities listed in Annex III and non-listed occupational activities. See further on exceptions and defences, Bergkamp and Bergeijk (2013), pp. 80–94.

  18. 18.

    ECJ C-378/08 (9 March 2010), para. 38–47. The opinion of Advocate General Koddett in this case includes an interesting expose on the applicable ratione temporis. See opinion AG Koddett of 22 October 2009 in ECJ case C-378/08. See also ECJ C-529/25 (1 Juni 2017), para. 21–25.

  19. 19.

    See ECJ C-378/08, at 41.

  20. 20.

    Ibidem, at 54.

  21. 21.

    It is beyond the scope of this chapter, but the fact that the ELD does not limit the financial exposure of an operators to a certain amount, has an effect on the availability insurance products for companies and others. For that and other reasons, the European Commission explored the feasibility of establishing a fund (or sectoral funds) and/or risk-pooling scheme(s). See BIO Intelligence Service et al. (2012).

  22. 22.

    See para. 1.3.1 of Annex II.

  23. 23.

    See Article 3(1)(a) and (b).

  24. 24.

    Article 2(3)(c).

  25. 25.

    See Article 2(2) of the HD.

  26. 26.

    In accordance with Article 1(d) and (h) of the HD, a distinction is made in Annex I and II between respectively so-called priority natural habitat types and other habitat types of Community interest and priority species and other species of Community interest. With regard to the priority natural habitat types and species ‘the Community has particular responsibility in view of the proportion of their natural range which falls within [the territory of the Member States]’ (Article 1 of the HD).

  27. 27.

    See further on the classification process and the criteria used to select SPAs and SACs (Sadeleer De 2005, pp. 220–231).

  28. 28.

    See Article 3(1) of the HD.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    Linked to the WFD is a number of so-called ‘Daughter Directives’, one of one of which is the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC).

  31. 31.

    See Article 1 of the WFD. See further Olazábal (2004, pp. 166–170).

  32. 32.

    See Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, OJ L 178, 28.6.2013, p. 66–106.

  33. 33.

    See Article 4(1)(c) of the WFD.

  34. 34.

    See Article 6 and Annex IV of the WFD. See further Grimeaud (2001, pp. 91–92).

  35. 35.

    See Article 6 and 7 and Annex IV of the WFD.

  36. 36.

    See Article 2(4)(a) of the ELD. See also Article 1(e) of the HD.

  37. 37.

    See Article 2(4)(b) of the ELD. See also Article 1(i) of the HD.

  38. 38.

    See Article 1(a), (e) and (i) of the HD, See also European Commission (2000, pp. 17–18).

  39. 39.

    Article 2(b) ELD.

  40. 40.

    Article 2(1)(c) ELD.

  41. 41.

    See Article 5–7 and 11 ELD, Some of these provisions are so-called self executing provisions. See for further details Fogleman (2006).

  42. 42.

    See Article 8(2) ELD.

  43. 43.

    Although one of the goals of the ELD is to maintain biodiversity, the ELD focuses primarely on the protection and conservation of the natural resources covered by these nature conservation Directives and not or only indirectly on biodiversity as such. See further Brans and Dongelmans (2014).

  44. 44.

    See Article 7(1) ELD.

  45. 45.

    See Article 2(11), (13) and Annex II, para. 1(c) and (d).

  46. 46.

    See Article 8(2) jo 2(16) of the ELD.

  47. 47.

    See Article 2(15) and Annex II, para 1(b)–(d) of the ELD.

  48. 48.

    Article 2(13) ELD. See also paragraph 1(d) of Annex II.

  49. 49.

    Such services are also not addressed in the relevant EC guidance documents Managing Natura 2000 Sites. The provisions of Article 6 of the HD, Luxembourg 2000 and Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the ‘Habitats Directive’ 92/43/EEC, Brussels 2007.

  50. 50.

    Article 6(4) HD also uses the term ‘compensatory measures’. However, taken the text of this provision, the ECJ’s case law and the EC’s guidance material that is available on article 6 HD, the term has a different meaning and is not comparable to the one used in the ELD. The measures that need to be taken under this provision of the HD are more likely to be considered primary and complementary remediation measures, to use ELD language.

  51. 51.

    See in this respect para. 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 of Annex II.

  52. 52.

    See para. 2 of Annex II of the ELD.

  53. 53.

    This is affirmed by Article 2(15) of the ELD.

  54. 54.

    Annex II, para. 1.3.2.

  55. 55.

    Annex II, para. 1.3.1–1.3.3.

  56. 56.

    Ibid.

  57. 57.

    Articles. 7(2) and 11 of the ELD. See also ECJ 9 March 2010, Joined Cases C-379/08 and C-380/08, para. 49–50.

  58. 58.

    See also ECJ 9 March 2010, Joined Cases C-379/08 and C-380/08, para 51.

  59. 59.

    Ibidem, para. 55. The ECJ considers that such an obligation does not exist in case ‘where the urgency of the environmental situation requires immediate action on the part of the environmental authority’. Ibidem, para. 56.

  60. 60.

    Ibidem, para. 64.

  61. 61.

    The European Commission funded various studies that investigated the causes of the limited application of the ELD. These studies are accessible via: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/index.htm.

  62. 62.

    See ELD Training Material, accessible via: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/eld_training.htm, and the ELD Multi-Annual Work Programme 2017–2020, (European Commission 2017).

References

  • Bergkamp and Bergeijk. (2013). Exceptions and defences. In L. Bergkamp & B. J. Goldsmith (Eds.), The EU environmental liability directive: A commentary (p. 2013). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betlem G. & Brans E. H. P. (2002). The Future Role of Civil Liability for Environmental Damage in the EU. Yearbook of European Environmental Law 2002, OUP, Oxford, 183–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • BIO Intelligence Service. (2009). Study on the Implementation of the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) and Related Financial Security Issues. 1–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • BIO Intelligence Service et al. (2012). Study to explore the feasibility of creating a fund to cover environmental liability and losses occurring from industrial accidents, Final report prepared for European Commission, DG ENV.

    Google Scholar 

  • BIO Intelligence Service. (2013). Implementation Challenges and Obstacles of the Environmental Liability Directive, Final Report prepared for European Commission—DG Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • BIO Intelligence Service. (2014). ELD Effectiveness: Scope and Exceptions, Final Report prepared for European Commission—DG Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans E. H. P. (2001). Liability for Damage to Public Natural Resources. Standing, Damage and Damage Assessment. The Hague/London/New York: Kluwer Law International, Environmental Law and Policy Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans E. H. P. (2006). Liability for Damage to Public Natural Resources under the 2004 EC Environmental Liability Directive—Standing, Damage and Damage Assessment, in Betlem, G., Brans, E. H. P. (Eds.), Environmental Liability in the EU. The 2004 Directive compared with US and Member State Law. 2006 London, Cameron May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans E. H. P. & Dongelmans D. H. (2014). The Supplementary Protocol and the EU Environmental Liability Directive: Similarities and differences. In Shibata A. (Ed.), International Liability Regime for Biodiversity Damage: The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Rrotocol, Routledge, 2014, pp. 180–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, S. M., Munari, F., & Di Pepe, L. S. (2008). The Environmental Liability Directive and liability for damage to the marine environment. Environmental Liability, 2008, 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2000). Managing Natura 2000 Sites. The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007). Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the ‘Habitats Directive’ 92/43/EEC, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2010a). Report on the Effectiveness of the Environmental Liability Directive, Brussels 12.10.2010, COM(2010) 581 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2010b). Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Communication from the Commission on Facing the Challenge of the Safety of Offshore Oil and Gas Activities, Brussels, 12.10.2010, SEC(2010) 1193 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2016). Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament under Article 18(2) of Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, Brussels 14.4.2016, COM/2016/0204 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2017). Multi-Annual ELD Work Programme (MAWP) for the Period 2017–2020. Making the Environmental Liability Directive more fit for purpose 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogleman, V. (2006). Enforcing the environmental liability directive: Duties powers and self-executing provisions. Environmental Liability, 14(4), 127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogleman, V. (2009). The environmental damage regulations; the New Regime. Environmental Liability, 2009, 147–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, B. J., & Lockhart-Mummery, E. (2013). The ELD’s national transposition. In L. Bergkamp & B. J. Goldsmith (Eds.), The EU Environmental Liabilty Directive: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimeaud, D. (2001). Reforming EU Water Law: Toward Sustainability, European Environmental Law Review, 91–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horswill, P. (2009). The biodiversity provisions of the Environmental Liability Directive – benefits, challenges and implications of inconsistent transposition. Environmental Liability, 2009, 57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • IOPC Funds. (2017). Guidelines for Presenting Claims for Environmental Damage, IOPC/APR17/4/1, 8 March 2017 (non final).

    Google Scholar 

  • MEA. (2005). World Resources Institute, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC. 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milieu Ltd., & IUCN. (2014). Experience gained in the application of ELD biodiversity damage. Final report for the European Commission, DG Environment. Brussels, February 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesterowicz, M. A. (2007). The application of the Environmental Liability Directive to damage caused by pollution from ships. LMCLQ, 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olazábal, C. (2004). Community Legislation on Water Protection. In Onida O.: Europe and the Environment, Europa Law Publishing, Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterveen, W. (2004). Some Recent Developments Regarding Liability for Damage Resulting from Oil Pollution—From the Perspective of an EU Member State. In Betlem, G. & Brans, E. H. P. (Eds.), Environmental Liability in the EU. The 2004 Directive compared with US and Member State Law. London: Cameron May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadeleer De , N. (2005). Habitats Conservation in EC Law: From Nature Sanctuaries to Ecological Networks (pp. 215–252). OUP, Oxford: Yearbook of European Environmental Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seerden, E., & Deketelaere, K. (Eds.). (2000). Legal Aspects of Soil Pollution and Decontamination in the EU Member States and the United States. Antwerpen/ Groningen: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens & Bolton LLP (2013). The Study on Analysis of integrating the ELD into 11 national legal frameworks, Final Report prepared for the European Commission – DG Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissenbacher, M. (2009). Implementation of the environmental liability directive in Austria. Environmental Liability, 2009, 199–203.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn, Bezuidenhoutseweg 57, 2594 AC, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Edward H. P. Brans

Authors
  1. Edward H. P. Brans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward H. P. Brans .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Abt Associates, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    Joshua Lipton

  2. eftec: Economics for the Environment Consultancy, London, United Kingdom

    Ece Özdemiroğlu

  3. Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

    David Chapman

  4. Abt Associates, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    Jennifer Peers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brans, E.H.P. (2018). The Environmental Liability Directive: Legal Background and Requirements. In: Lipton, J., Özdemiroğlu, E., Chapman, D., Peers, J. (eds) Equivalency Methods for Environmental Liability. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9812-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation