Skip Navigation


Journal of Environmental Law Advance Access originally published online on June 3, 2008
Journal of Environmental Law 2008 20(2):163-191; doi:10.1093/jel/eqn013
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/2/163    most recent
eqn013v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Winter, G.
Right arrow Articles by Krämer, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2008]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Weighing up the EC Environmental Liability Directive{dagger}

Gerd Winter*, Jan H. Jans**, Richard Macrory*** and Ludwig Krämer****

*Professor of Law at the University of Bremen (gwinter{at}uni-bremen.de).
**Professor of Law at the University of Groningen.
***Professor of Law at University College, London.
****Professor of Law, Brussels/Madrid.


  Abstract

In spite of a lengthy gestation period, the Environmental Liability Directive left conceptual puzzles that have caused difficulties of transposition by Member States and of application by authorities, operators, third parties and insurance companies. This is largely due to the fact that the Directive ventures into highly sophisticated national legal and doctrinal traditions. Its history and terminology are re-examined in order to explain some of the difficulties. Both the added value and the drawbacks of the Directive are considered. Problems of transposing the Directive within the national legal systems of a number of selected Member States are considered, as well as the principles of direct effect in cases of insufficient transposition. It is concluded that although the Directive should have been improved, it does have merits in that it obliges Member States to develop their often rather haphazard national laws in this area into a more comprehensive and coherent system of obligations and powers coping with environmental damage.

{dagger}This article is based upon the papers and discussion at the meeting of the Avosetta Group of European Environmental Lawyers in Gent 1, 2 June 2007. The sections on Poland and Spain build upon papers presented at the meeting by Jerzy Jendroska/Magdalena Bar and Angel Manuel Moreno/Agustin García Ureta, respectively. The proceedings of the meeting are accessible at www.avosetta.org


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Rev Environ Econ PolicyHome page
S. M. Olmstead
The Economics of Water Quality
Rev Environ Econ Policy, November 12, 2009; (2009) rep016v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.