1 See generally Legrand, P., “Against a European Civil Code” (1997) 60 M.L.R. 44Google Scholar; Reimann, Matthias, “Towards a European Civil Code: Why Continental Jurists Should Consult their Transatlantic Colleagues” (1999) 73 Tulane Law Review 1337Google Scholar; the special issue on “Interactive Private Law Adjudication in the European Multilevel System—Analytical Explorations and Normative Challenges” (2000) 8 European Review of Private Law No. 1; Hesselink, Martijn W., “The Structure of the New European Private Law” Vol. 6.4 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law (December 2002)Google Scholar, http://www.ejcl.org/64/art64-2.html; Arthur Hartkamp et al. (eds.), Towards a European Civil Code, 3rd ed. (2004).

2 Joerges, Chrsitian, “The Impact of European Integration on Private Law: Reductionist Perceptions, True Conflicts and a Modest Proposal” (1997) 3 European Law Journal 378Google Scholar.

3 Teubner, Gunther, “Legal Irritants: Good faith in British Law or How Unifying law Ends Up in New Divergences” (1998) 61 M.L.R. 11.Google Scholar

4 Directive 2004/35/CE [read: EC] of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, O.J. 2004 L 143/56.

5 COM (2000) 66 final, Brussels, 9 February 2000, available at the Commission’s Website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/liability/index.htm.

6 See also Lee, R.G., “EU Proposals on Environmental Liability: From a Private to a Public Law Framework” [2003] J.B.L. 180Google Scholar.

7 Gerrit Betlem and Edward Brans, “The Future Role of Civil liability for Environmental Damage in the EU” in Han Somsen et al. (eds.), 2 Yearbook of European Environmental Law 183 at 215 (Oxford 2002). Directive 2001/18/Ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, O.J. 2001 L 106/1, recital 16, of the preamble which reads: “The provisions of this Directive should be without prejudice to national legislation in the field of environmental liability, while Community legislation in this field needs to be complemented by rules covering liability for different types of environmental damage in all areas of the European Union. To this end the Commission has undertaken to bring forward a legislative proposal on environmental liability before the end of 2001, which will also cover damage from GMOs.”

8 See generally Cane, P., “Tort as Regulation” (2002) 31 Common Law World Review 305Google Scholar.

9 E.g. Code Civil, § 1382 and its progeny.

10 With preludes in the 19th century, public bodies having had long extensive powers of interference: see, for example, the “statutory nuisance” regime in England under the Public Health Act 1875, sections 91 et seq.

11 L. Bergkamp, [Polluter Pays Twice] De vervuiler betaalt dubbel (Antwerpen/Groningen 1998); cf. Cane, P., “Using Tort Law to Enforce Environmental Regulations?” (2002) 41 Washburn Law Review 427Google Scholar.

12 Mark Stallworthy, “Environmental Liability and the Impact of Statutory Authority” (2003) 15 Journal of Environmental Law 3; Alessandra Arcuri, “Controlling environmental risk in Europe: the complementary role of an EC environmental liability regime” [2001] Tijdschrift voor Milieu Aansprakelijkheid/Environmental Liability Law Review 37; see also, from 41 Washburn Law Review 2002, Spring issue: Kenneth S. Abraham, “The Relation Between Civil Liability and Environmental Regulation: An Analytical Overview” at 379; Michael Anderson, “Transnational Corporations and Environmental Damage: Is Tort law the Answer?” at 399; Keith N. Hylton, “When Should We Prefer Tort Law to Environmental Regulation?” at 515, and Allan Kanner, “Toxic Tort Litigation in a Regulatory World” at 535.

13 Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, O.J. 2002 L 11/4.

14 Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, O.J. 1985 L 210/29 as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999 amending Council Directive 85/374/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, O.J. 1999 L 141 /20; a consolidated version is available on the EUR- LEX Website, URL: europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/index1.html.

15 O.J. 1991 C 192/6.

16 See Abraham, “Relation between Civil Liability and Environmental Regulation”, at 397.

17 See Commission White Paper on modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, O.J. 1999 C 132/1, Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, O.J. 2003 L 1/1; Proposal for a Directive of the Euopean Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Directives 84/450/EC, 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), COM(2003) 356 of 18 June 2003; and Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, O.J. 2004 L 157/45.

18 Preamble, recital 8.

19 Preamble, recital 9.

20 Ibid.

21 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on access to justice in environmental matters, COM(2003) 624, pp. 2-5. And see “Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment,” Defra Consultation on the EC Proposals relating to Aarhus, p. 8, underlining the possible contribution of that Directive to a more level playing field in the application of EC environmental law; available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/aarhus/index.htm.

22 SEC(2004) 1025 of 27 July 2004. See also the Press Release IP/04/1038 “Implementation of EU environmental law: survey highlights serious shortcomings.”

23 W.G.A. Hazewindus and C.J. van der Wilt, “[Legal Protection against Pollution. A Plea for Private Law Remedies] Rechtsbescherming tegen milieuoverlast. Een pleidooi voor de civiele rechtsgang” [2003] Nederlands Juristenblad [Dutch Lawyers Journal] 322.

24 Schwartz, Gary T., “Reality in the Economic Analysis of Tort Law: Does Tort Law Really Deter?” [1994] UCLA Law Review 377Google Scholar.

25 See also, for an English case study, Pontin, Ben, “Tort Law and Victorian Government Growth: the Historiographical Significance of Tort in the Shadow of Chemical Pollution and Factory Safety Regulation” (1998) 18 O.J.L.S. 661.Google Scholar

26 Ibid., at p. 393.

27 Ibid., at p. 401.

28 Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Aarhus, 25 June 1998, (1999) 38 International Legal Materials 517. In force since 30/10/01, see http://unece.org/env/pp/

29 Website Aarhus Convention | Status of ratification, www.unece.org/env/pp/ (visited 12 February 2005). Of the pre-2004 enlargement Member States, the Convention is binding upon Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.www.unece.org/env/pp/

30 Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, O.J. 2003 L 41/26.

31 Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, O.J. 2003 L 156/17.

32 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on access to justice in environmental matters, COM(2003) 624; Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on applying the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to EC institutions and bodies, COM(2003) 622; Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice regarding Environmental Matters, COM(2003) 625; Brussels, 24th October 2003.

33 Article 9(3) Access to Justice: “In addition and without prejudice to the review procedures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, each Party shall ensure that, where they meet the criteria, if any, laid down in its national law, members of the public have access to administrative or judicial procedures to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of its national law relating to the environment.”

34 COM(2003) 624, p. 12 and recital 4 of the proposed Directive.

35 Ibid., at p. 3, 4 and 5.

36 Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests, O.J. 1998 L 166/51; Directive 2004/48/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, O.J. 2004 L 157/45.

37 See also Stephen Stec et al., The Aarhus Convention: an Implementation Guide, UN Doc. ECE/ CEP/72, New York and Geneva 2002, p. 123-125, available at http://unece.org/env/pp/, at p. 130-136. It is true that the Convention requires access to a court of law and/or another body, but the latter must be an independent and impartial body established by law. Normally, only civil courts will be competent to deal with disputes between private actors. Contra Vera Rodenhoff, “The Aarhus Convention and its Implications for the ‘Institutions’ of the European Community” (2002) 11 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 343, at p. 349. Lee and Abbot think it is debatable whether a “citizen suit” is required by this provision: Maria Lee and Carolyn Abbot, “The Usual Suspects? Public Participation Under the Aarhus Convention” (2003) 66 M.L.R. 80, at p. 105.

38 See Article 2(1)g and 2(2) of the Proposal, COM(2003) 624, p. 18.

39 See note 29 above.

40 See “Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment,” Defra Consultation on the EC Proposals relating to Aarhus, p. 14; available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/aarhus/index.htm.

41 See the government’s sustainable development Web site: http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what_is_sd/transparency.htm.

42 Specifically in the environment sector, the same point has been made by the Global Judges Symposium meeting during the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, which adopted the “Johannesburg Principles on the Role of law and sustainable Development,” 18-20 August 2002, available at the UNEP Website (www.unep.org/ documents/) and the WSSD Website (www.dfa.gov.za/docs/wssd288g.htm, visited 15/04/03); reprinted in (2003) 15 Journal of Environmental Law 107.

43 See e.g. Sjef van Erp, “European Union Case Law as a Source of European Private Law: A Comparison with American Federal Common Law” Vol. 5.4 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law (December 2001), http://www.ejcl.org/ejcl/54/art54-1.html.

44 Case C-253/00 Muñoz and Superior Fruiticola [2002] E.C.R. I-7289; [2002] 3 C.M.L.R. 26; [2003] 3 W.L.R. 58; [2003] All E.R. (EC) 56.

45 Regulation (EEC) No. 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables, O.J. 1972 L 118/1 and Council Regulation (EC) No. 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables, O.J. 1996 L 297/1.

46 See English High Court 26 March 1999 Muñoz v. Frumar [1999] 3 C.M.L.R. 684 (Laddie J.).

47 Judgment of 10 May 2000, unreported, see Lexis.

48 I.e. Article 3(1) of both Reg. 1035/72 and 2200/09, which reads, as far as relevant here: “The holder of products covered by the quality standards adopted may not display such products or offer them for sale, or deliver or market them in any other manner within the Community than in conformity with those standards. The holder shall be responsible for observing such conformity. …”

49 Citing an earlier authority on this point: Case 34/73 Vaiola [1973] E.C.R. 981.

50 Hartley, T.C., The Foundations of European Community Law, 5th ed. (Oxford 2003) at 204Google Scholar. And see e.g. Article 36 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, O.J. 1993 L 30/1 (as amended).

51 See for EC law Hartley, European Community Law, at p. 468; Paul Craig and Grannie de Burca, EU Law—Text, Cases and Materials 3rd ed. (Oxford 2002) at p. 549; the leading cases are: Joined Cases 5, 7 and 13-24/66 Kampffmeyer and Others v. Commission [1967] E.C.R. 245 and Case C-282/90 Vreugdenhil II [1992] E.C.R. I-1937. See for Dutch, English and German law: Asser-Hartkamp 4-III: [Dutch Law of Obligations] C. Asser’s Handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlands burgerlijk recht, Verbintenissenrecht, Deel III, De verbintenis uit de wet, 11th ed., by A.S. Hartkamp (Zwolle 2002), No. 197.

52 See the Commission White Paper on modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, O.J. 1999 C 132/1; Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, O.J. 2003 L 1/1; the ECJ’s Case C-453/99 Courage v. Crehan [2001] E.C.R. I-6297, [2001] 5 C.M.L.R. 28 and Kominos, “New Prospects for Private Enforcement of EC Competition law: Courage v. Crehan and the Community Right to damages” (2002) 39 C.M.L.Rev. 447.

53 Case 26/62, [1963] E.C.R. 1 at p. 13 (emphasis added).

54 Craig and De Burca, EU Law, at p. 404.

55 Joined Cases C-6 and 9/90 Francovich [1991] E.C.R. I-5357 at paras. 32, 33.

56 See Nos. 43-45 referring to Case C-281/98 Angonese [2000] E.C.R. I-4139.

57 Jans, J. H., European Environmental Law (Groningen 2000), Chapter 8.Google Scholar

58 Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori [1994] E.C.R. I-3325.

59 C-194/94 CIA Security [1996] E.C.R. I-2201; Case C-443/98 Unilever Italia v. Centralfood [2000] E.C.R. I-7535; see also C-77/97 Österreichische Unilever [1999] E.C.R. I-431 and Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic [2002] E.C.R. I-5031. See generally Craig and de Burca, EU Law, at 211-227 and Gerrit Betlem, “The Doctrine of Consistent Interpretation—Managing Legal Uncertainty” (2002) 22 O.J.L.S., p. 397.

60 Para. 27 of Muñoz; Opinion A-G Geelhoed, Nos. 33-45; see also the headnotes in [2003] 3 C.M.L.R. 26.

61 Case C-128/92, [1994] E.C.R. I-1209.

62 See also van Gerven, Walter et al., Tort Law (Oxford 2000) at 895Google Scholar; Prechal, Sacha, Directives in European Community Law (Oxford 1995) at 329 and 331Google Scholar.

63 Para. 26 of the judgment.

64 See most recently Case C-222/02 Paul and Others [2004] E.C.R. nyr (judgment of 12 October 2004), para. 49 and Case C-224/01 Kobler [2003] E.C.R. I-10239, [2003] 3 C.M.L.R. 28, paras. 102-103.

65 See for an in-depth analysis of this distinction Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C316/93 Vaneetveld [1994] E.C.R. 1763 and Opinion of A-G Lenz in Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori [1994] E.C.R. I-3325.

66 See Joined Cases C-438/03, C-439/03, C-509/03 and C-2/04 Cannito and Others [2004] E.C.R. nyr. Similar questions were again put before the Court in June 2004. See Case C-295/04 Manfredi and Case C-296/04 Cannito, O.J. 2004 C 251/3.

67 Case C-453/99 Courage and Crehan [2001] E.C.R. I-6297, at paragraph 26 of the judgment.

68 Opinion A-G Jacobs of 22 May 2003 in Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 AOK Bundesverband [2004] E.C.R. nyr (ECJ judgment of 16 March 2004), at No. 104; [2004] 4 C.M.L.R. 22.

69 Carsten Kremer, “Liability for Breach of European Community Law: An Analysis of the New Remedy in the light of English and German Law,” in: P. Eekhout and T. Tridimas (eds.), 22 Yearbook of European Law (2003), at p. 211. See on the direct effect of Articles 81(1) and 82 EC Case C-453/99 Courage and Crehan [2001] E.C.R. I-6297, at para. 23.

70 Ibid.

71 Cf. for a similar approach to negligence in a comparative perspective: Nils Jansen, “Duties and Rights in Negligence: A Comparative and Historical Perspective on the European Law of Extracontractual Liability,” (2004) 24 O.J.L.S. 443.

72 Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, O.J. 1993 L 141/27.

73 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the Internal Market and amending directives 84/ 450/EEC, 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), COM(2003) 356.

74 Case C-453/99 Courage v. Crehan [2001] E.C.R. I-6297, [2001] 5 C.M.L.R. 28.

75 See also Albertina Albors-Llorens, “Case note: Courage v. Crehan: Judicial Activism or Consistent Approach?,” [2002] C.L.J. 38 at p. 40 and 41; Renato Nazzini, Concurrent Proceedings in Competition Law (Oxford 2004), p. 109. Contra: Kominos, “New Prospects for Private Enforcement of EC Competition law”, at p. 470.

76 Case 39/94, [1996] E.C.R. I-3547; [1996] 3 C.M.L.R. 369.

77 Betws Anthracite Ltd. v. DSK Anthrazit Ibbenburen GmbH [2003] EWHC 2403 (Comm), [2004] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 289 (QBD, Commercial Court).

78 See also Opinion A-G Van Gerven in Case C-128/92 Banks I [1994] E.C.R. I-1209, at No. 43.

79 Para. 19 of Courage, citing Francovich and Van Gend and Loos.

80 See in particular the operative part of Courage where the ECJ rules that: “Article 85 (now 81) of the [EC] Treaty precludes a rule of national law under which …”.

81 Case C-352/98 P Bergaderm [2000] E.C.R. I-5291. See for further analysis Takis Tridimas, “Liability for breach of Community law: growing up and mellowing down?,” 38 C.M.L.Rev. 301 (2001) and Betlem et al., “Francovich Follow-Up”, s. 9: “Tort Liability of the European Community,” Website, available at. http://www.eel.nl/dossier/francovi.htm

82 This reasoning echoes Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1962] E.C.R. 1 at p. 12; see also para. 31 of Francovich.

83 See Jans, European Environmental Law, at p. 213; Prechal, Directives in European Community Law, at p. 137; the cases are all Commission v. Germany. C-131/88, [1991] E.C.R. I-825 (groundwater), Case C-58/89, [1991] E.C.R. I-4983 (drinking water), Case C-59/89, [1991] E.C.R. I-2607 (air); Opinion A-G Jacobs in Case C-237/90, [1992] E.C.R. I-5973, No. 15 (drinking water); Case C-298/95, [1996] E.C.R. I-6747 (shellfish water).

84 Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94 and C-190/94, [1996] E.C.R. I-4845.

85 Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours, O.J. 1990 L 158/59.

86 Paras. 30-42 of the judgment; see also Van Gerven (2000) at 929.

87 Bowden v. Southwest Services Ltd. [1999] 3 C.M.L.R. 180, para. 14 (C.A.).

88 See for a recent general overview Stanton, K.M., “New Forms of the Tort of Breach of Statutory Duty,” (2004) 120 L.Q.R. 324Google Scholar.

89 Deakin, S.F., Johnston, A. and Markesinis, B.S., Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law, 5th ed. (Oxford 2003)Google Scholar, at 358. Markesinis, Basil S. and Unberath, Hannes, The German Law of Torts— A Comparative Treatise, 4th ed. (Oxford 2002) at 885Google Scholar; Asser-Hartkamp 4-III (2002), No. 34; Van Gerven, Tort Law, p. 305.

90 The term is presumably a kind of “euro-German” as the “real” legal German seems to be: Schutzgesetzverletzung (Markesinis and Unberath, ibid, at 885) or Normzwecklehre (Asser- Hartkamp 4-III, ibid, at No. 97).

91 Van Gerven, Tort Law, p. 894.

92 Asser-Hartkamp 4-III (2002), No. 34; HR 24 November 1989, NJ 1992 404 (the Interlas case), see for discussions in English: Gerrit Betlem, Civil Liability for Transfrontier Pollution (London 1993) at 122 ff., and Gerrit Betlem, “Transboundary Enforcement: Free Movement of Injunctions”, in Sven Deimann and Bernard Dyssli (eds.), Environmental Rights (London 1995), p. 184-229.

93 Markesinis and Unberath, German Law of Torts, p. 885, 886.

94 Deakin, Johnston and Markesinis, Tort Law, p. 364-365; Opinion A-G Geelhoed in Muñoz, No. 55.

95 Bell, John et al., Principles of French Law (Oxford 1998), p. 355, 359Google Scholar. Zweigert, K. and Kötz, H. (T. Weir transl.), Introduction to Comparative Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford 1998), p. 619Google Scholar; Youngs, R., English, French and German Comparative Law (London/Sidney 1998), p. 219CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Bell, French Law, at pp. 359-360; 361-364; Van Gerven, Tort Law, p. 305.

97 See Lunney, M. and Oliphant, K., Tort Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2003) at 583–584Google Scholar; see also Rogers, W. H., Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 16th ed. (London 2002), at 274Google Scholar. Garden Cottage Foods v. Milk Marketing Board [1984] A.C. 130.

98 Joined Cases C-46 and 48/93, [1996] E.C.R. I-1029; Van Gerven, Tort Law, p. 951.