EXPLAINED: MINIMUM GUARANTEES OF A COMPENSATION RIGHT IN THE IED

The briefing advocates for four key minimum guarantees to make the IED compensation right effective: support for collective actions to represent vulnerable individuals, accountability for authorities when their breaches cause individual damage, court-led disclosure tools to address information asymmetry, and the use of rebuttable presumptions to balance evidence requirements. It also rejects any limitations on the use of scientific data as evidence in court.

• The document supports the inclusion of collective action mechanisms under Art. 79a(2), arguing that such mechanisms allow NGOs to represent individuals with severe illnesses like cancer or heart diseases. It asserts that this would not lead to "US-style class action waves" because claimants must still prove all elements of their case and can only seek damages for actual detriment caused by illegal behavior.
• The briefing supports Art. 79a(1) regarding authority accountability, stating that compensation claims against authorities should be limited to situations "where appropriate" and where the breach leads to specific individual damage. It cites a French example where families of two children received compensation payments of €2,000 and €3,000 for health damages resulting from breaches of air quality standards.
• To address information asymmetry between industrial operators and victims, the document supports Art. 79a(4a), which would allow courts to order operators to provide specific information if it is exclusively held by them. This tool is described as a way to "accelerate lengthy court proceedings" and is subject to court discretion and confidentiality rules.
• The document advocates for a rebuttable presumption under Art. 79a(4) to help sick people meet evidence requirements, which are currently described as "nearly impossible" to meet. It argues that such presumptions are already used in other EU laws and national laws, such as the German Environmental Liability Act regarding causal links.
• The briefing rejects any limitations on scientific data used as evidence in court, arguing that requiring data to be "clear and consistent" contradicts the goal of improving the victim's situation. It references CJEU C-375/21, which asks for the consideration of all "relevant scientific data" in the IED context.

APA

ClientEarth (2023). EXPLAINED: MINIMUM GUARANTEES OF A COMPENSATION RIGHT IN THE IED. https://www.clientearth.org/media/fc5oacap/briefing_minium-guarantees-of-compensation-right-in-ied_october-2023.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. EXPLAINED: MINIMUM GUARANTEES OF A COMPENSATION RIGHT IN THE IED. 2023. https://www.clientearth.org/media/fc5oacap/briefing_minium-guarantees-of-compensation-right-in-ied_october-2023.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=EXPLAINED: MINIMUM GUARANTEES OF A COMPENSATION RIGHT IN THE IED |date=1 October 2023 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/fc5oacap/briefing_minium-guarantees-of-compensation-right-in-ied_october-2023.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearth2023explained, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{EXPLAINED: MINIMUM GUARANTEES OF A COMPENSATION RIGHT IN THE IED}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2023}, month = oct, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/fc5oacap/briefing_minium-guarantees-of-compensation-right-in-ied_october-2023.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }