Law applicable to cross-border environmental damage: from the European autonomous

systems to Rome II*

Katia Fach Gomez

I. Introductory Remarks

II. Law applicable to cross-border environmental damage

A. International instruments

B. National conflict rules

1. Characterisation of environmental damage

2. Connecting factors

a) Which version of lex loci delicti?

b) Different ways of weakening the lex loci delicti

3. Scope of the applicable law

4. Mandatory rules, rules of conduct and safety and administrative authorisations

C. Consultation on a preliminary draft Proposal and Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)

III. Concluding Remarks

I. Introductory Remarks

The natural resources of our planet have for some time now been suffering significant
damage attributable to human intervention. Constant industrial activity in many different areas,
accidents with environmental repercussions, the harmful elements we all generate on an individual
basis (refuse, noise, vehicle emissions, etc.) are some of the many causes that combine to produce
damage to the environment. Moreover, this pollution frequently extends beyond the borders of the

* This article summarizes some of the ideas expressed in Katia FACH GÓMEZ´s book: La contaminación transfronteriza en
Derecho Internacional Privado. Estudio de derecho aplicable (Transboundary pollution in Private International Law: study of
applicable law), Barcelona 2002, 486 pp. The article has been elaborated within this framework of the rechearching project C-
264-36 of the University of Zaragoza (Spain). Katiafachgomez@gmail.com. Katia Fach Gomez,“Law applicable to cross—
border environmental damage: from the European autonomous systems to Rome II”, Swiss Yearbook of Private International
Law, 2004, pp. 291-318.
1

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1675549

 country where it originated, having negative effects on goods and persons in other States. In this
respect, as has been graphically stated, pollution has no regard for national frontiers and, ignoring
these political divisions, expands throughout the territories of the different sovereign States.

The law has an important corrective and preventive role to play in dealing with the damage
to our environment. In order to respond to environmental pollution in a truly effective manner, the
judicial framework needs to act as a coherent whole. To this end, together with the measures that are
being adopted in legal sectors such as Administrative, Criminal or Civil Law, Private International Law
must also offer its own solutions. The element of internationality that characterises cross-border
environmental damage requires the specialised intervention of this discipline1 .

This study will concentrate on how the law applicable to cases of transboundary pollution
is defined in the European context. In doing so, reference will be made to the international conventions
already in force in this area, the most relevant features of the national conflict rules existing in this
sector will be analysed and also the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the
Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (often known as Rome II)2, presented by
the European Commission on 22 July 2003, will be considered.

II. Law applicable to cross-border environmental damage

A. International instruments

In the first place, we can see that in the international legal sphere the environmental
problem has proved fertile ground for the drafting of legislation on uniform substantive law that is
characterised by its diversity: thus, whereas some international instruments have limited their legal
response to a specific type of pollution (nuclear, oil...)3, others have taken a unitary approach to the
phenomenon (e.g. Council of Europe Convention on Civil Liability for Damage resulting from
Activities Dangerous to the Environment)4 . There are also instruments that already enjoy a certain
“standing” (e.g. Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy, 1960), whilst

1 Paradigmatic in this sense is the express reference to the transboundary pollution made by the Institute of International law
in: ‘La responsabilité en droit international en cas de dommages causés à l´environnement’, Yearbook of the Institute of
International Law, Session of Strasbourg 1997, Volume 67, part II, pp. 486-513.

2 S. Bruselas, 22.7.2003, COM (2003), 427 final, 2003/0168 (COD), in www.europa.eu.int.

3 S. Footnotes 7 and 8.

4 In this matter, s., especially, DE SADELEER N., ‘La Convention du Conseil de l’Europe sur la responsabilité civile des
dommages resultant de l’exercice d’activités dangereuses pour l’environnement', in: Revue générale des assurances et des
responsabilités 1994, pp. 12367.1-12367.6; MARTIN G. J., ‘La responsabilité civile pour les dommages d l’environnement et la
Convention de Lugano’, in: Revue Juridique de l’environnement 1994, pp. 121-136; LARROUMET C., ‘La responsabilité civile
en matière d’environnement. Le projet de Convention du Conseil de l’Europe et le livre vert de la Commission des
Communautés européennes’, in: Recueil Dalloz Sirey 1994, Chronique, pp. 101-107 and www.coe.int.
2

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1675549

 others have only recently been conceived (e.g. Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation for
Damage resulting from Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, 1999)5.
Furthermore, although these environmental issues are often addressed in the form of international
Conventions, the European Union has also been showing an interest in regulating some aspects of
environmental liability in the European context by resorting to the mechanism of the Directive6 .

Although this study will mainly concentrate on analysing pollution from the perspective of
the conflict of laws, the influence of unified substantive law on this area cannot be overlooked. In this
respect, if such unified substantive law is shown to be self-sufficient, this could lead to an abstention
from regulation within the area of Private International Law and, contrarily, the lack of international
substantive regulations could drive the creation of conflict rules in this area7 . Taking the Spanish rules
as an example, it can be seen that, even though international texts like the Brussels International
Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution 19698 and the Convention on Third Party Liability in
the Field of Nuclear Energy 1960 9 are in force in this country, a by no means negligible proportion of
the cases of pollution with international effects that might be tried by the Spanish courts would be
settled by reference to the rule contained in the autonomous conflict rule (article 10.9 of the Spanish
Civil Code)10. Thus, on the one hand, the legal category of this rule would cover the cases of marine
pollution by hydrocarbons and also of nuclear damage not included in the respective international
Conventions. It would also cover the specific aspects of cases which, while coming within the scope of
the Conventions, have not received a substantive response in these. On the other hand, a wide diversity
of cases of cross-border environmental damage which are not governed by any Convention of uniform
substantive law in Spain (acid rain, heat emissions, non-nuclear radiation, river pollution,
electromagnetic waves, noise damage, etc.) should also be incorporated under article 10.9 of the
Spanish Civil Code. An in-depth study of the current situation of unified substantive law in the

5 In this respect, s., especially, CUBEL SANCHEZ P., Comercio Internacional de residuos peligrosos, Valencia 2001; BITAR F.,
Les mouvements transfrontières des déchets dangereux selon la Convention de Bâle, Paris 1997 and http://untreaty.un.org/
French/sample/notpubl.asp.

6 S., ORTIZ-ARCE DE LA FUENTE A., ‘La responsabilidad civil referida al medio ambiente en el marco de la Comunidad
Europea. Las relaciones entre las disposiciones materiales y las disposiciones jurisdiccionales y conflictuales’, in: Revista de la
Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid 1997, pp. 165-224. Recently, s. Proposal for a Directive on the
Prevention and Restoration of Significant Environmental Damage (COM (2002) 17 final - 2002/0021 (COD)), 23-1-2002.

7 In this way, some international texts admit a partial dependence on the Private International Law. In this sense, s., el article 19
of the Basel Protocol (regarding this text, s., VAISSIERE T., ‘Le projet de Protocole à la Convention de Bâle sur la responsabilité
et l’indemnisation des dommages resultant des mouvements transfrontières de déchets dangereux et leur élimination’, in:
Actualité et droit international 1999, in www.ridi.org/adi).

8 www.imo.org.

9 www.nea.fr.

10 Concerning article 10.9 of the spanish Civil Code, s., ESLAVA RODRÍGUEZ M., ‘Responsabilidad extracontractual, gestión de
negocios ajenos y enriquecimiento sin causa’, in: Derecho Internacional Privado, Vol. II, Granada 1998, p. 603 ("su ámbito
material alcanza en definitiva a ilícitos que cuantitativamente ocupan un lugar central en el Derecho de la responsabilidad
civil").
3
 international environmental context has been carried out within the scope of the Hague Conference,
and this also reached the general conclusion that in this sector “a worldwide private international law
Convention would come to fill a yawning gap”11.

Secondly, together with the above-mentioned initiatives of uniform law, it should be

pointed out that there are various international draft instruments on conflict-of-laws relating to
transboundary pollution which are currently being developed12 . It should be borne in mind that the
entry into force of legislation of this nature (such as Rome II, for example) would mean a reduction in
the repercussion of autonomous conflict rules, which will be studied below.

B. National conflict rules

1. Characterisation of environmental damage

When it comes to determining the substantive law under which a legal claim arising from
an event of cross-border environmental damage should be settled, the question arises as to under which
conflict rule the environmental case should be subsumed. With regard to how the different substantive
law systems respond in legal terms to the problem of pollution, we find that, in addition to the
principle of civil liability, which aims to compensate the losses sustained, some substantive law
systems seek to settle disputes involving interference between real estate assets on the basis of
relationships of proximity, allowing claims whose predominant aim is to prevent or terminate the
harmful activity 13. This substantive approach, which distinguishes according to the nature of the
claim, has affected the way certain international pollution cases have been settled. Thus, German and
Austrian courts have defined their international judicial competence on a number of occasions by

11 S., BERNASCONI C., ‘Civil liability resulting from transfrontier environmental damage: a case for the Hague Conference?’,
in: Hague Yearbook of International Law 1999, pp. 39 and 54-55 (or www.hcch.net); HOHLOCH G., Das Deliktsstatut.
Grundlagen und Grundlinien des internationalen Deliktsrechts, Frankfurt 1984, pp. 223-228; VON BAR C., ‘Environmental
damage in Private International Law’, in: Recueil des Cours 1997, Den Haag 1999, p. 360.

12 In the european sphere, some iniciatives in this matter should be underlined: the project of the Hague Conference
(BERNASCONI C., -note 10-); the proposal elaborated by the European Group for Private International Law (FALLON M.,
‘Proposition pour une convention européenne sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles’, in: European Review of
Private Law 1999, pp. 45- 68 y TEBBERS D., ‘Proposal for an European Convention on the law applicable to non-contractual
obligations’, in: Netherlands international law review 1998, pp. 465-471), and iniciatives of the European Union like Roma II
(s. Section II,C). In the american sphere, the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Private International Law (CIDIP) also
presented a draft in year 2000 about jurisdiction and applicable law in cases of transboundary pollution (this project has
generated plentiful discussion and its execution is nowadays still doubtfull). In this respect, s., FERNÁNDEZ ARROYO D., ‘La
CIDIP VI está más cerca’, in: Anuario español de Derecho Internacional Privado 2000, pp. 1005-1006; Conflict of laws on tort
liability, with emphasis on jurisdiction and the law applicable to international civil liability for transboundary pollution
(Document prepared by the delegation of Uruguay); FERNÁNDEZ ARROYO D./KLEINHEISTERKAMP J., ‘The VI. inter-american
specialized Conference on private international Law (CIDIP VI): a new step towards interamerican legal integration’, in:
Yearbook of Private International Law 2002, t. IV, pp. 252-253.

13 Analising the juridical system of countries like Germany, Austria, Denmark or Holland, s., VON BAR C.,
Gemeineuropäisches Deliktsrecht, Part I, München 1996, pp. 533-537.
4
 resorting to the forum of rights in rem14 , and have also applied the lex rei sitae to these disputes

arising between pieces of real estate15. However, the use of the conflict rule relating to rights in rem in
environmental matters has now been overtaken by the concept, given expression in Swiss and German
law 16, which favours subsuming all actions involving polluting emissions under the conflict rule
relating to non-contractual liability. This solution (which hints at some fundamental proposals similar
to those contained in the new wording of article 5.3 of Regulation 44/01 and in the case-law of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities relating to article 5.3 of the Brussels Convention) 17 is
considered to be the appropriate one, because it allows all claims that may be brought by a damaged
party in a transboundary pollution case to be given unitary treatment in terms of the conflict of laws.

2. Connecting factors

a)Which version of lex loci delicti?

Having dealt with the question of under which conflict rule to subsume the principle of
environmental damage, we now also need to examine how the law applicable to transboundary
pollution is determined. Traditionally, claims for harmful acts involving some foreign element have
been settled by applying the law of the place of commission. This territorial connecting factor is
contained in many national conflict rules, including article 10.9 of the Spanish Civil Code, which lays
down that: “non-contractual obligations shall be governed by the law of the place where the event
giving rise to them occurred”18 . Despite the apparent simplicity of this rule, however, it must be
pointed out that the transboundary character of pollution introduces difficulties into the interpretation
of the locus delicti criterion. The different interpretations that have been made of this connecting factor
result in very diverse conflict solutions. Thus, it may be understood that reference to the lex loci delicti
invariably leads to applying the law of the place where one of the elements constituting the tort occurs.

14 In Germany, s., Sentence BGH, 10-3-1978 about the Salzburg airport, in: Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1979, p. 226 and
Sentence LG Waldshut-Tiengen, 11-2-1982, about the Zurich airport, in: Umwelt- und Planungsrecht 1993, p. 15. In Austria, s.
Sentence OLG Linz 15-6-1987, in: Juristische Blätter 1987, p. 578, Sentence OGH 13-1-1988, in: Juristische Blätter 1988, p.
324 and Sentence OGH 23-2-1988, in: Österreichische Juristenzeitung 1988, p. 562.

15 Following this last criterion, german courts have used their own sustantive law to solve a claim of some german owners,
who were damaged in Germany by the noises originated in the swiss airport of Zürich. This sentence mentions the application
of the lex rei sitae rule. S., Sentence LG Waldshut-Tiengen, 11-2-1982, in: Umwelt- und Planungsrecht 1993, p. 15; REST A.,
‘International environmental law in german courts’, in: Environmental Policy and Law 1997, p. 415; KRIECH M.,
Grenzüberschreitender Umweltschutz im schweizerischen Recht, Zürich 1986, p. 5.

16 Art. 99.2 Loi fédérale du droit international privé suisse du 18 décembre 1987: “Claims arising out of nuisances originating
from real property are governed by the provisions of this Act regarding to torts (art. 138)”. Art. 44 german EGBGB: “Claims
arising out of nuisances originating from real property are governed by art. 40.1 of this law”.

17 S. FACH GÓMEZ K., ‘Acciones preventivas en supuestos de contaminación transfronteriza y aplicabilidad del artículo 5.3
CB’, in: Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 1999, pp. 583-607 and SCJEC de 1 de octubre 2002, Case C-167/00, Verein
für Konsumenteninformation and Karl Heinz Henkel. S., www.curia.eu.int.

18 About this article, s. AMORES CONRADI M. A., ‘Comentario al artículo 10.9’, in: Comentarios al Código Civil y
Compilaciones forales, Part I, Vol. II, 2nd. ed., Madrid 1995, pp. 729-769.
5
 To give an example, article 31 of the Polish Private International Law Act or article 1129 of the law of
Belorussia19 declare that the applicable law is the law of the State in which the harmful act arises20.
This is contrasted with provisions such as the one contained in the belgian law of Private International
law, which favour intervention in transnational pollution matters by the law of the State in which the
damage or injury occurred or is likely to occur21.

In spite of the expression that has been given to these exclusive connections in legislation
and case law, in the area of cross-border damages it seems that recourse to these implies ignoring the
close connections that the case has with at least two States territorially affected by the tort. It is for
this reason that the ubiquity theory is often used in the area of the applicable law. This theory, which
has its origins in criminal law and is also applied to interpret article 5.3 of the Brussels Convention/
Regulation 44/0122 , leads to both the place where the harmful event occurred and the place where the
injury results being considered as the place where the tort was committed. In this respect and based on
the splitting of the locus delicti imposed by the ubiquity theory, the law applicable to cases of
transboundary pollution may be defined by reference to various determining criteria, which may
distinguish according to whether several or only one legal system is finally involved in the solution of
the pollution case.

On the one hand, it is possible that by interpreting the concept of locus delicti in terms of
the ubiquity theory, the intervention of the lex loci actus and the lex loci damni may be advocated in
the settlement of a case of cross-border environmental damage. In this respect, the application of both
legal systems on a distributive basis has been considered, with each of them being responsible for
determining particular aspects of the tort. Giving expression to the above, articles 107 and 108 of the
Rumanian PIL Act determine the tort capacity of the perpetrator by the lex loci actus and apply the lex
loci damni to the remaining aspects of the transboundary tort 23. An approach of this nature may
however give rise to uncertainties (for example, by penalising through the lex loci damni an act

19 MOSGO O., ‘Das neue internationale Privatrecht Weissrusslands’, in: IPRax 2000, p. 154.

20 VON HOFFMANN B., ‘Article 38’, in: Staudinger, EGBGB, 13th. ed., Berlin 1998, pp. 97-98.

21Article 99 of the new belgian Law of Private International Law, wich will come into force the 1st October 2004 (in this
respect, s. ERAUW J., ‘Brief description of the draft belgian code of private international law’, in: Yearbook of Private
International Law 2002, t. 4, pp. 159-160) and in the same sense s. http://www.drt.ucl.ac.be/gedip/gedip-documents-8pe.html.
(it should be taken into account that these articles and also the british or turkish Act admit some ways of weakening the lex loci
damni).

22 SCJEC Handelskwekerij GJ Bier BV v. Mines de Potasse d’Alsace SA, case 21/76, Recueil 1976, pp. 1735 - 1758.
Analising this Sentence, s. especially, REST A., ‘Plaintiff can choose his court’, in: Environmental policy and law 1977, pp.
41-45; R EST A., ‘Wahl des zuständigen Gerichtes bei Distanzdelikten nach dem EG-Zuständigkeits und
Vollstreckungsübereinkommen. Ein erster Schritt zum Schutz des Geschädigten im internationalen Umweltrecht’, in: RIW
1977, pp. 669-674; BOUREL P., in: Rev. crit. dr. int. pr. 1977, pp. 563-576; DROZ A.L., in: Recueil Dalloz Sirey 1977, pp.
613-615; HUET A., in: Clunet 1977, pp. 728-734; CALLORI M., ‘Giurisdizione in materia di responsabilità extracontrattuale:
l’art. 5.3 della Convenzione di Bruxelles del 1968 e la questione della localizzazione del forum damni’, in: Riv. dir. int. priv.
proc. 1997, pp. 615-642.

23 CAPATINA O., ‘La réforme du droit international privé roumain’, in: Rev. crit. dr. int. pr. 1994, pp. 167-195, p. 184.
6
 considered lawful by the lex loci actus). It does not therefore seem appropriate to retain it as
connecting factor in the area of non-contractual obligations. Another possible way of resolving cases
of non-contractual liability is the one that has been defended from time immemorial by the case law of
the Commonwealth, which favours the cumulative application of the lex fori and the foreign lex loci
delicti in determining the unlawfulness of the act that has given rise to the damage24. Recent
developments in countries like the United Kingdom, however, have shifted away from this view, which
does not seem to fit in with the tendency of substantive law to give priority to the party harmed by the
pollution.25

On the other hand, and having already established that the above-mentioned approaches do
not enjoy majority support, it must be pointed out that it is a widely held view that transnational
damage should be settled by applying (but not in a pre-determined way) only one of the legal systems
that are territorially connected with the tort. In this respect, the law applicable to the cases of cross-
border environmental damage can be defined by reference to various determining criteria. For
example, the choice between the legal systems territorially connected with the transboundary pollution
may be exercised by the competent court, by analysing the characteristics of the case on the basis of
the principle of proximity and applying to it the law most closely connected with the case26 . The
implementation of this criterion, defended for example in article 2 of the Project on tort obligations
presented by the Institute of International Law 27 and given expression in a recent French judgment on
cross-border damage28 , would however require overcoming the fear of legal uncertainty. It would also
be possible, as is the case in the Portuguese Civil Code29 , for the law applicable to liability in cases of
international pollution to be determined by examining the foreseeability of the damage, although
having recourse to this criterion could require an autonomous definition of the concept of

24 COLLINS L., Dicey and Morris on the conflict of laws, Part II, 2º supplement to the 13. edition, London 2000, pp. 288-297.

25 In this sense, s. the application in UK of this double actionability rule in an hypothetical case of damages caused by acid
rain. S., PALLEMAERTS M., ‘Judicial recourse against foreign air polluters: a case study of acid rain in Europe’, in: The Harvard
Environmental Law Review 1984, pp. 164-194.

26 In this sense, s. XU GOUJIAN D., ‘Torts in chinese private international law: A case note’, in: I.C.L.Q. 1991, pp. 684-691;
BYSTRICKY R., ‘Les traits généraux de la codification tchécoslovaque en droit international privé’, in: Recueil des Cours 1968,
Leyde 1969, pp. 479-480 and the Sentence of the Cour d´appel of Paris about the case Mobil North Sea, LÉGIER G.,
‘Responsabilité civile extra-contractuelle. Commentary about the case Mobil’, in: Clunet 1997, p. 989.

27 S. ‘Les obligations délictuelles en droit international privé’, in: Anuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, Session
d’Edimbourg 1969, Part II, Bâle 1969, pp. 370-374.

28 S. BISCHOFF J. M., ‘Mobil North Sea Ltd. et autres c. Compagnie française d’entreprises métalliques et autres’, in: Rev. crit.
dr. int. pr. 2000, pp. 199-206 ; LÉGIER G., ‘Bulletin de jurisprudence française. Responsabilité’, in: Clunet 1999, pp. 1048-1057.

29 With regard to article 45 of the portuguese Civil Code (whose text has been reproduced in the Acts of the former portuguese
colonies of Angola and Mozambique, and also in the article 2097 of the peruvian Civil Code), s. NETO A., Código Civil
anotado, 10th ed., Lisboa 1996, p. 41; NEUHAUS, P.H./RAU, H., ‘Das internationale Privatrecht im neuen portugiesischen
Zivilgesetzbuch’, in: RabelsZ 1968, pp. 500-512 and 513-524. In Austria, s. Sentence del OGH de 29 de abril de 1981, in:
Juristische Blätter 1983, pp. 380-382.
7
 foreseeability that would not be without its difficulties 30. It has also been proposed, by academic
writers, that a distinction should be made in terms of conflict-of-laws, according to whether the
liability is fault-based or strict, these types of torts being connected respectively with the lex loci actus
and the lex loci damni31. Such a distinction according to the nature of the liability could however give
rise to difficulties in qualification, and has therefore not found support either in legislation or in case
law 32.

Finally, it is also possible to make the choice between the lex loci actus and the lex loci
damni on the basis of the principle of the most favourable law in each case. In the environmental
sector, this criterion of the most favourable law (in german, Günstigkeitsprinzip) is contained in article
138 of the Swiss Private International Law Act 33. The lex favorabilior has also been used in German
case law to settle some cases of cross-border environmental damage which occurred in France and
caused damage in Germany 34. This principle of lex favorabilior has however given rise to various
doubts in German legal practice (where the question has been raised, for example, as to who should be
responsible for determining the most favourable law 35, according to what parameters this choice
should be made36 and whether it was possible, in the event of a plurality of claims, for these to be

30 In this respect, s. BEITZKE G., ‘Kritische Bemerkungen zum Deliktsrecht’, in: Freiburger Kolloquium über den
schweizerischen Entwurf zu einem Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht, Freiburg 27-28 Abril 1979, Zürich 1979,
p. 58.

31 RABEL E., The conflict of laws. A comparative study, 2nd. ed., Part II, Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor 1960, pp. 328 and
333; EHRENZWEIG A.A., ‘Der Tatort im amerikanischen Kollisionsrecht der ausservertraglichen Schadenersatzansprüche’, in:
Festschrift für Ernst Rabel, Part I, Deutschland 1953, pp. 655-683.

32 Ignoring such distinction, s. in environmental cases, Sentence AG Bonn de 29-9-1987, in: IPRax 1988, pp. 351-354 and
International Law Reports, number 80, Cambridge 1989, pp. 377-388.

33 Art. 138: ‘”Claims arising out of damaging nuisances originating from a real property are governed at the option of the
injured party by the law of the state in which the real property is located or by the law of the state in which teh result
occurred”. In this respect, s. DASSER F. ‘Article 138’, in: Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht. Internationales
Privatrecht, Basel 1996, pp. 1030-1038; HEINI A., ‘Article 138”, in: IPRG Kommentar, Zürich 1993, pp. 1201-1204 and
DUTOIT B., Droit international privé suisse. Commentaire de la loi fédérale de 18 décembre 1987, 2nd. ed., Bâle 1997, pp.
399-400.

34 In this respect, s. IPRspr. 1956-57, number 42, p. 151 et seq; REST A., ‘International environmental liability law before
german courts’, in: Environmental liability law Review 1997, p. 118 and Sentence LG Saarbrücken, 4-7-1961, in: IPRspr.
1960-1961, number 38, pp. 125-128.

35 With regard to the binomial fakultative/alternative Anknüpfung, s. KREUZER K., ‘Article 38’, in: Münchener Kommentar,
Burgerliches Gesetzbuch, Internationales Privatrecht, München 1998, pp. 2030-2031; SIEHR K., ‘Deutsches Haftpflichtrecht
für grenzüberschreitende Immissionen’, in: Grenzüberschreitende Verschmutzung; Tschernobyl/Schweizerhalle, Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht, Basel 1989, pp. 78-79.

36 WOLFRUM R./LANGENFELD C., Umweltschutz durch internationales Haftungsrecht, Umweltforschungsplan des

Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit,8th report, Berlin 1998, p. 385
8
 submitted to different legal systems)37 . Today, recent codings of private international law have given a
new profile to the principle of the most favourable law, which helps to facilitate the work of the courts
and eliminate uncertainties such as those cited above. Thus, provisions such as the current german
article 40.1 CC establish that transboundary torts will be settled by applying the lex loci actus unless
the claimant requests the application of the lex loci damni38 . An approach that is considered to be
even more appropriate (because of the presumption that the party sustaining the loss frequently has
recourse to the courts of his country when seeking compensation for damage caused by a polluter
located in another State) is that contained in rules such as those of Italian and Venezuelan Private
International Law, which establish the application of the lex loci damni except where the party
sustaining the loss opts in favour of the application of the lex loci actus 39. In short, when it comes to
drawing up a conflict rule about transboundary violation of the environment, the general view is that
the above-mentioned solution is the one that should be adopted, which allows the claimant to revoke
the application of the legal system – territorially connected with the legal action – designated by the
legislator. This right of choice allows the party damaged by the pollution to choose the legal system
that best suits his claims. In this way, the principle of the most favourable law also has a positive effect
on the protection and restoration of the environment 40.

b) Different ways of weakening the lex loci delicti

Having analysed the different ways in which the criterion of the locus delicti could be used
to deal with torts occurring in the territory of more than one State, it must now be noted that academic
writers have been insistently pointing out the inappropriateness of solve all international cases of non-
contractual liability by reference to the law of the State where the tort occurred41 . Taking up this view,

37 BUCHER A., ‘Les actes illicites dans le nouveau droit international privé suisse’, in: Le nouveau droit international privé
suisse. Travaux des journées d’Étude organisées par le centre de droit de l éntreprise à l’Université de Lausanne, Lausanne
1989, pp. 128-129 and 136 and BUSCH R., Die Ubiquitätsregel im Internationalen Deliktsrecht unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung des schweizerischen IPRG, Pfaffenweiler 1996.

38 With regard to the german article 40.1, s. PFEIFFER T., ‘Die Entwicklung des internationalen Vertrags-, Schuld- und
Sachenrechts 1997-1999’, in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1999, pp. 3674-3687; JUNKER A., ‘Die IPR-Reform von 1999,
Auswirkungen auf die Unternehmenspraxis’, in: RIW 2000, pp. 241-255 and KOCH R., ‘Zur neuregelung des Internationalen
Deliktsrechts: Beschränkung des Günstigkeitsprinzip und Einführung der vertragsakzessorischen Bestimmung des
Deliktsstatuts?’, in: Versicherungsrecht 1999, pp. 1453-1460. The same wording appears in article 164.3 of the stonian law, art
8.4 from Kasajstan or art 70 tunisian PIL Act.

39 POCAR F., ‘Le droit des obligations dans le nouveau droit international privé italien’, in: Revue critique du droit
international privé 1996, p. 60; KINDLER P., ‘Internationale Zuständigkeit und andwendbares Recht im italienischen IPR-
Gesetz von 1995’, RabelsZ 1997, pp. 227-284; PARRA ARANGUREN G., ‘The venezuelan 1998 act on private international law’,
in: Netherlands International law Review 1999, pp. 383-394; HERNÁNDEZ- BRETÓN E., ‘Neues venezolanisches Gesetz über
das Internationales Privatrecht’, in: IPRax 1999, pp. 194-200 ; DE MAEKELT T B., ‘Das neue venezolanische Gesetz über
Internationales Privatrecht’, in: RabelsZ 2000, pp. 299-343.

40 This is the chosen solution in the Rome II iniciative. S. more details in, Section II C.

41 For example, BOUREL P., ‘Un nouveau champ d’exploration pour le droit international privé conventionnel: les dommages
causés à l’environnement’, in: L’internationalisation du droit. Mélanges en l’honneur de Yvon Loussouarn, Paris 1994, pp.
102-104.
9
 many rules of Private International Law in the European area have incorporated various criteria into
their conflict systems which reduce the role of the lex loci delicti42. In United States law, the rigid
application of the territorial connection has also been rejected and more casuistic methods of
resolution have been advocated43. These mechanisms deserve to be considered in a positive light,
insofar as they offer “more personalised” solutions to the multiplicity of cases of non-contractual
liability which occur in reality. Some of the non-territorial criteria that may be used to settle cases of
environmental tort will be mentioned below.

In this respect, the application of the lex loci delicti may give rise to problems if the
pollution has occurred in an area not subject to territorial sovereignty. In the event of damage arising
or sustained on the high seas, at the poles or in outer space, recourse to the locus delicti would lead us
to an enclave with no legal system. For such cases it has been appropriately suggested that other
criteria should be taken into consideration, such as the lex fori or the law of the State whose flag the
ship flies44. In the field of transboundary pollution the question is also raised as to whether the
conflict system should retain any personal kind of circumstance as a connecting factor. Even though
the common place of habitual residence of the parties involved in the tort has been taken into
consideration by certain foreign codes of Private International Law45, the general view is that there is
really no reason for such a criterion in the specific sector of transnational pollution. Reference to the
lex communis habitationis does not tally with the typical scenario of transboundary pollution (because
in these cases the parties do not usually have habitual residence in the same State), nor does it
necessarily lead to much more carefully thought out results than those that would arise from the
jurisdiction of the lex loci delicti. Therefore, its possible recognition as a criterion that excludes the lex
loci delicti must be viewed with caution. Nor is nationality currently accepted in the field of
continental law as a suitable element for making the lex loci delicti more flexible in environmental
matters, and it should be regarded as a conflictually irrelevant criterion in this sector of eminently
asset-based claims46.

The application of the lex loci delicti may be excluded in those cases where there was already a
pre-existing legal relationship (which may be of a contractual, real, partnership or family nature)
between the parties involved in a case of liability. Situations like these are solved in comparative law by

42 However, the spanish legislator didn´t insert any criteria to weaken article 10.9 of the Civil Code.

43E. g., MC DOUGAL III L.L., ‘The so-called choice of law revolution in the United States’, in: Comparative law Review 1995,
pp. 54-88.

44 WU C., La pollution du fait du transport maritime des hydrocarbures, Mónaco 1994, pp. 13-34 and LORENZ E., ‘Das
anwendbare Recht bei Schiffs- und Flugzeugunfällen’, in: Vorschläge und Gutachten zur Reform des deutschen internationalen
Privatrechts der ausservertraglichen Schuldverhältnisse, Tübingen 1983, pp. 442-463.

45 S. e. g. , art. 40.2 german law, 133.1 of Swiss Act of PIL, 3126.2 from Québec, 70.3 from the tunisian law.

46 LÉGIER G., ‘Détermination de la loi applicable. Sources extra-contractuelles des obligations.’, in: Juris-Classeur de droit
comparé, fascicle 553-1, Paris 1993, esp. nº 16.
10
 including in the conflict system the theory of secondary connection. Provided that certain requirements
are present, this enables the intervention of the lex loci delicti to be excluded, and the question of
liability is resolved by reference to the law indicated by the conflict rule applicable to the pre-existing
relationship. In the field of environmental liability, the rule of secondary connection would be useful in
such cases as the following: If an employee suffers injuries while performing his duties in a foreign
country as a result of the spread of pollution that has been caused by the same company that has hired
him, the employer’s liability for the physical injuries of his employee would be determined by recourse
to the law applicable to the contract of employment 47.

In the sector of torts, it can also be seen that the principle of freedom of choice is
becoming increasingly important. The possibility of the parties choosing the law that will determine
the question of tort liability is receiving growing support both among academic writers and in
legislation48, and similarly in the field of case law the Dutch legal profession has admitted the optio
legis in cases of cross-border environmental damage, such as that of the potash mines of Alsace49 .
While the optio legis mechanism has been accepted as a starting point for making the conflict system
more flexible, it has however been found that its exercise, whether in legislation or in case law, is
limited. Thus, the admissibility of an agreement made before the tort was committed is questioned50,
there is a tendency to exclude the possibility of tacitly exercising this choice51 and certain legal codes
restrict the legal systems between which it is possible to choose52 . There is also a desire to prevent the
determination of the lex commune voluntatis from having a negative effect on third parties or on the
party damaged by the harmful event (which, for example, leads to proposing the introduction of
mechanisms in the non-contractual area, such as those that protect the weaker party in an international
contract - articles 5.2 and 6.1 of the Rome Convention) 53. In order to complete this outline of the
profiles that characterise the optio legis in the sector of liability, other questions must also be
considered, such as the relationship between unilateral and consensual autonomy, whether it is possible
to replace the conflict solutions of an international text by invoking the freedom of choice and the

47 NYGH, P. E., ‘The reasonable expectations of the parties as a guide to the choice of law in contract and tort’, in: Recueil des
Cours 1995, The Hague 1996, p. 357.

48 Art. 132 swiss Act, art. 142 german law, art 71 tunisian law, art 9 hungarian law, art 10 Rome II iniciative (S. with more
details, Section II C).

49 S. District Court of Rotterdam, 8-1-1979, in: Netherlands yearbook of International law 1980, pp. 329-333 and District
Court of Rotterdam, 16-12-1983, in: Netherlands yearbook of International law 1984, pp. 479-482.

50 VON OVERBECK A., ‘L’irrésistible extension de l’autonomie en droit international privé’, in: Noveaux itinéraires en droit.
Hommage à François Rigaux, Bruselas 1993, p. 627.

51 SCHACK H., ‘Rechtswahl im Prozess? ‘, in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1984, p. 2736.

52 For example, art. 132 swiss Act: “Parties may, any time after the damage occurred, agree to apply the law of the forum”.

53 HOHLOCH G., ‘Rechtswahl im internationalen Deliktsrecht’, in: Neue Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht 1988, pp. 165-166 and
VON HOFFMANN B., ‘Article 38’, in: Staudinger, EGBGB, 13td. ed., Berlin 1998, p. 168.
11
 appropriateness of renvoi in the matter54 . Specifically with regard to the environmental sector, the
application of the freedom of choice as a way of settling cases of cross-border environmental damage
must therefore not be lightly dismissed. It is however important that, as has been pointed out, its
exercise should be regulated so that the protection of the person who is negatively affected by the
pollution is not neglected through the inter partes agreement.

Another way of excluding the application of the lex loci delicti is by introducing a “closest
connection” clause into the international private law regulation. This criterion may be expressed either
as a generic type of declaration which is later defined through a series of presumptions55, or as a
saving clause which would take effect if a closer connection is detected with a legal system other than
the one determined by the main conflict rule56. In the national legal systems where this latter approach
is admitted, the legislator does not specify conclusively how and in what cases such an exception is to
take effect, and these issues are therefore left in the last instance to the discretion of the competent
court. It must therefore be taken into account that recourse to this theory could undermine legal
certainty and de facto imply a means of applying the lex fori. If we further consider that the essence of
the “closest connection” approach is also found in exceptions that have already been mentioned such
as the secondary connection, then it is held that this generic exception should only be included as a
testing clause of the conflict system.

3. Scope of the applicable law

Having analysed the different connecting factors that could be taken into account in
determining a transboundary tort, we now need to examine whether the law declared applicable by the
conflict system really does govern all the aspects arising from a case of cross-border environmental
damage. Although in the legislative field there is a desire to grant a broad scope to the lex causae 57 ,
academic writers and case law have been pointing to the possibility that other legal systems might also
participate in determining these transboundary cases. By way of example: a judge who is faced with a
case of international pollution could choose to determine the tort capacity of the perpetrator by

54 Widely, s. FACH GÓMEZ K., La contaminación transfronteriza en Derecho Internacional Privado. Estudio de derecho
aplicable, Barcelona 2002, pp. 236 et seq.

55 S. art. 3 from the Proposal of the European Group for Private International Law.

56 S. for example, art. 48.1.2 austrian law, 52.1.2 law of Liechtenstein, 12 british law, 25.3 law of Turkey.

57 This trend is contained for example in the wording of article 10.10 of the spanish Civil Code. (“la ley reguladora de una
obligación se extiende a los requisitos del cumplimiento y a las consecuencias del incumplimiento, así como a su extinción”).
S. DE ANGULO M., ‘Artículo 10.10’, in: Comentarios a las reformas del Código Civil, Part I, Madrid 1977, pp. 556-558; VIRGÓS
SORIANO M., ‘Artículo 10.10’, in: Comentarios al Código Civil y Compilaciones Forales, 17th Part, Madrid 1995, pp. 769-788.
S. also article 11 of the Rome II regulation.
12
 reference to his personal law58, the legal system regulating a previous connection between the parties

would specify the existence of privileges of liability 59, the application of the lex fori is possible in
matters of public law profiles such as compensation through compensatory funds or compensation for
the damage suffered by the environment as such60 , the lender’s liability could be determined by
reference to the law regulating credit61, the application of the lex societatis is feasible in respect of the
liability of companies for the unlawful activities of its organs 62, the law governing the relationship
between the creditor and the party subrogated in payment would be taken into account in respect of the
subrogation63 and the lex contractus would have a role to play in questions such as limitation of
liability clauses64 or some aspects of the inter vivos assignment of claims 65.

Matters such as those cited above show that in practice the unity of the legal system of
obligation can be broken. Although it is true that some of the applications mentioned are proposals that
do not have unanimous backing, there are other exceptions to the lex causae that have been introduced
into some legislations and suggest a broader consensus on restricting the monopoly of the lex causae
in tort matters. By way of example, various rules of autonomous Private International Law contain a
provision specifically dedicated to the question of direct action. Reflecting a pro damnato approach,
these provisions admit the exercise of direct action if the law governing the tort or the lex contractus
(which may be inter-related in different ways), permits this66.

58 SCHWIND F., Internationales Privatrecht, Viena 1990, p. 231; SCHWIMANN M., Grundriss des internationalen Privatrechts
mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der IPR-Staatsverträge, Viena 1982, p. 172; AGUILAR BENÍTEZ DE LUGO M., ‘El estatuto
personal’, in: Lecciones de derecho civil internacional, Madrid 1996, pp. 32-33.

59 FIRSCHING K., ‘Anwendungsbereich des Deliktstatuts’, in: Vorschläge und Gutachten zur Reform des deutschen
internationalen Privatrechts der ausservertraglichen Schuldverhältnisse, Tübingen 1983, p. 185; VON BAR C., Internationales
Privatrecht, Part II, München 1991, pp. 521-522.

60 VON BAR C., (note 10) , pp. 394-395.

61 HAGUE CONFERENCE, ‘Note on the law applicable to civil liability for environmental damage, Preliminary Document 9,
May 1992’, in: Actes et documents de la 17. Session de la Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé, 10 au 29 mai
1993, Part I, Den Haag 1995, p. 199.

62 In this sense, s. articles 155 g) and h) and 159 of the swiss Act of Private International Law in: VON PLANTA A., ‘Article
155’ and ‘Article 159’ , in: Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht. Internationales Privatrecht, Basel 1996, pp.
1151-1152 and 1178-1188. Regarding the application of the lex societatis in cases of normative violation, s., SONNENBERGER H.
J., ‘Empfiehlt es sich, die ausservertragliche Haftung von Gesellschaften und ihren Organen durch akzessorische Anknüpfung
dem Gesellschaftsstatut zu unterstellen?’, in: Vorschläge und Gutachten zur Reform des deutschen internationalen Privatrechts
der ausservertraglichen Schuldverhältnisse, Tübingen 1983, pp. 464-474.

63 LÉGIER G., ‘Domaine de la loi compétente. Sources extra-contractuelles des obligations’, in: Juris-Classeur de droit
comparé, fascicle 553-2, Paris 1993, number 84.

64 SIEHR K., ‘General Report on non-contractual obligations, general problems and the final provisions’, in: LANDO, O./ VON
HOFFMANN, B./SIEHR K., European Private International law of obligations, Tübingen 1975, p. 57 and BRANDT, G., Die
Sonderanknüpfung im internationalen Deliktsrecht, Göttingen 1993, p. 89.

65 KELLER M./ GIRSBERGER D., ‘Article 145’, in: IPRG Kommentar, Zürich 1993, pp. 1247-1248.

66 S. Art. 141 swiss PIL Act, 109 rumanian law, 40.4 german law, 74 tunisian law, art. 14 Rome II iniciative.
13
 4. Mandatory rules, rules of conduct and safety and administrative authorisations

Mandatory rules may also affect the decision of a case of transboundary pollution. In the
tort sector, it can be imagined that the legislator has recourse to these provisions, which are not subject
to the conflict rule process, in order to express the State’s interest in a matter, to protect a group of
individuals or to guard the collective against harmful activities. In this respect, academic writers have
held the view that in the environmental sector have e.g. the nature of a mandatory rule a law on
liability for nuclear damage67 , rules that quantify compensation for environmental damage68 or
provisions that impose a compulsory insurance. The consideration of precepts of this kind as
internationally mandatory rules does not seem controversial if their proper scope is determined,
whereas regulations which, in the absence of any express reference, require the interpretation of the
courts give rise to greater doubts69. Today, various private-international rules permit the application of
the mandatory rules of the law of the forum in torts 70. In this respect it is held that if the
internationally mandatory rules are clearly intended to be applied to the dispute, the court must admit
this provision. The participation of mandatory rules of third countries in the determination of a
transboundary tort is however deemed to be more difficult. Although this intervention should in
principle be seen in a positive light (given that it is a way of achieving international harmonisation of
judicial decisions), it must be pointed out that in this area the different legislations coincide in
imposing requirements such as the consideration of various factors (nature and purpose of the rule,
consequences arising from its application...) and ensuring that there is a close connection between the
situation and the State from which the rule originates. Even where this assessment process produces a
positive result, the court can modulate the effects that such rules would have on the non-contractual
obligation and reject a strict application of the mandatory rule and its legal consequences 71. Finally,
there are doubts among academic writers regarding the legal treatment that should be given to the
mandatory rules originating from the lex causae, and it can be understood both that the reference to the

67 SCHWIMANN M., Grundriss des internationalen Privatrechts mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der IPR-Staatsverträge,
Viena 1982, p. 174.

68 XU D., Le droit international privé de la responsabilité délictuelle, Fribourg 1992, pp. 84-85.

69 VIRGÓS SORIANO M., ‘El Convenio de Roma de 19 de junio de 1980 sobre ley aplicable a las obligaciones contractuales’,
Tratado de Derecho Comunitario Europeo (Estudio sistemático desde el derecho español), Part III, Madrid 1986, p. 813;
BATIFFOL H./LAGARDE, P., Traité de Droit international Privé, Part I, 8th ed., Paris 1993, p. 427.

70 Art. 3076 Québec, art. 17 italian law, art. 1100 bielorussian law, art. 38 tunisian law, art. 10 venezuelan law. Also, art. 12.2
Rome II.

71 BONOMI A., Le norme imperative nel diritto internazionale privato, Zürich 1998; SCHURIG K., ‘Lois d’application
immédiate und Sonderanknüpfung zwingenden Rechts: Erkenntnissfortschritt oder Mystifikation?’, in: Internationales
Privatrecht. Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Köln 1985, pp. 55-76.
14
 conflict rules also includes these provisions, and that the mandatory rules of the applicable law that
protect public interests must assimilate mandatory rules of third countries72.

Definitely, a growing trend in favour of recognising the application of mandatory rules in

the sector of the non-contractual liability can be observed. The coding of this phenomenon brings with
it a commendable reduction in the uncertainty that has traditionally surrounded the application of
certain provisions which on occasions present public law features. Progress must however continue in
defining the profiles of the principle of mandatory rules and in specifying the limits of action of the
courts in this area.

The environmental sector is governed by rules of conduct and standards of safety which,
when breached, usually have repercussions in the criminal or administrative area. In the determination
of a case of cross-border environmental damage, doubts may arise about the role to be granted to the
rules of safety and conduct of the State in which the tort occurred, especially in cases where the law
applicable to a case of non-contractual liability is a legal code which is different to the lex loci
delicti73. On the one hand, in pollution matters, it is possible that these provisions may affect the
determination of the unlawfulness of the conduct. This is a consequence of the fact that the legal
categories of the lex causae are normally formulated as open principles. Such generality implies that
the existence of unlawfulness is a question that must be answered by reference to the rules of safety
and conduct of the locus delicti (understanding this concept in a ubiquitous sense), because it is these
rules that really define ad casum the requirements of diligence (which are relative and therefore
depend upon the place and time). In these cases, then, all that is really carried out is a merely material
assessment of the rules of safety of the locus actus (which are only granted de facto effect), while the
amount and consequences of the liability are determined only through the statute on tort. Consequently
the private-international provisions that deal with this question allude to “taking account” of these
rules of safety and conduct 74 and, in accordance with what has been explained above, academic
writers propose that these provisions should be resorted to in order to adapt the rule of lex causae to
the internationality of the case75 . On the other hand, in the area of proof of causality of the cross-
border environmental damage, the conduct guidelines of the lex loci actus may also be subsumed in
the cause of action of a substantive rule of the statute on tort. Situations of this kind would arise if, for
example, article 6.1 of the German rule on environmental liability were to be involved in the

72 KREUZER K., ‘Parteiautonomie und fremdes Aussenwirtschaftsrecht’, in: Zum deutschen und internationalen Schuldrecht.
Kolloquium aus Anlass des 75. Geburtstages von Ernst Caemmerer, Tübingen 1983, pp. 95-106; GARCIMARTÍN ALFÉREZ F. J.,
Contratación interancional y medidas de coerción económica, Madrid 1993, pp. 39 and 125.

73 STOLL H., ‘Deliktstatut und Tatbestandswirkung ausländischen Rechts’, in: Multum non Multa. Festschrift für K. Lipptein
aus Anlass seines 70. Geburtstages, Heidelberg 1980.

74 Art. 45.3 portuguese law, 142.2 swiss Act, 75.2 tunisian law, 33 hungarian law, 110 rumanian law, art 13 Rome II iniciative.

75 UMBRICHT R. P./BURKHALTER, T., ‘Article 142’, in: Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht. Internationales
Privatrecht, Basel 1996, pp. 1060-1061.
15
 determination of the dispute. This rule presumes that there is a relationship of causality between an
installation and the damage caused, provided that the installation is capable of having caused such
damage. This presumption does not apply, however, if the owner of the installation proves that he has
acted in accordance with the rules76. When considering international pollution cases, some authors
take the rules of the locus actus as data, which leads them to accept that operation in accordance with
the provisions of the locus actus also excludes this presumption of causality of the lex causae77.

Polluting emissions often originate from an installation that has been authorised by the
Administration, and it can be imagined that in the course of an action for transboundary pollution the
polluter may allege that he holds an administrative licence that tolerates the activity carried out. In the
material legal systems, possession of such an authorisation produces different effects in civil law. In
most cases, an administrative licence does not release its holder from his compensatory obligations78.
A public authorisation does however sometimes exclude prohibitory actions by private persons. For
example, German rules such as article 14 of the Law on protection against environmental emissions
establishes that when there is a firm licence, the shutdown of the polluting installation cannot be
demanded79 . Likewise, article 364.a) of the Austrian Civil Code expressly includes a restriction of
actions80, because the party damaged by an authorised installation cannot request either the cessation
of the activity or the adoption of measures to protect against the damage. The only option which
remains is to sue for compensation for the damage suffered81.

Bearing in mind this material substrate (which must not be exaggerated, because, as has
been pointed out, in most cases possession of an administrative licence only has “disabling effects”
with regard to actions of abstention), it may be asked what value will be given to a licence issued in
the locus actus in a case of transboundary pollution tried by the courts of the locus damni in

76 In this matter, s., LANDSBERG G./ LÜLLING W., ‘Die Ursachenvermutung und die Auskunftansprüche nach dem neuen
Umwelthaftungsgesetz’, in: Der Betrieb 1991, pp. 479-484; LEIPOLD D., ‘Beweis und Beweislast im Umwelhaftungsprozess’,
in: Umweltschutz und Recht in Deutschland und Japan, Heidelberg 2000, pp. 191-213; SCHMIDT-SALZER J., Kommentar zum
Umwelthaftungsrecht. Betrieblichen Risiken und innerbetriebliche Verantwortung, Heidelberg 1992, pp. 502-641; ZEUNER A.,
‘Article 6. Ursachenvermutung’, in: SOERGEL, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, Part 5/2, Stuttgart 1998.

77 W OLF U., Deliktsstatut und internationales Umweltrecht, Berlin 1995, p. 257; H AGER G., ‘Article 6
Umwelthaftungsgesetz’ , in: LANDMANN/ROHMER, Umweltrecht, München 1999, paragraphs 61-66.

78 PRIEUR M., ‘Zivilrechtliche Schadenersatz und Unterlassungsklagen. Anwendbares Recht -Rapport du groupe de travail :
La reconnaissance des autorisations étrangères’, in: Les problèmes juridiques posés par les pollutions transfrontières, Colloque
Saarbrücken 1982, Berlin 1984, p. 214; KREUZER K., ‘Umweltstörungen und Umweltschäden im Kollisionsrecht’, in: Berichte
der Deustschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht, 22. Tagung in Trier 1991, Heidelberg 1992, p. 268.

79Gesetz zum Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Luftverunreinigungen, Geräuche, Erschütterungen und
ähnliche Vorgänge. Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz, 14-5- 1990.

80 STOLL H., in STAUDINGER, in : Internationales Sachenrecht, 13th, Berlin 1996, pp. 144-145.

81 OBERHAMMER P., in: Praxiskommentar zum ABGB samt Nebengesetzen, 2nd. ed., Part II, Viena 1998, pp. 123-129.
16
 accordance with their own legal system. Initially, academic writers and case law based their thinking
on the territorial character of public law and denied the restrictive effects of foreign authorisations82.
Later, this position has become more flexible, and there have been various commendable approaches
whose common objective is non-ignorance of the foreign administrative authorisation. Thus, it has
been proposed that foreign licences should be taken into account as data within the scope of the lex
causae. In this respect, the restrictive effects which the applicable law recognises for its authorisations
could also be predicated for foreign administrative documents if certain requirements are met (analogy
in cases of the grant of licences, possibility of the claimant intervening in the process of the foreign
authorisation…)83. In conjunction with this solution, which has been used by Austrian case law in a
case of cross-border emissions84, it has also been proposed by academic writers that a rule should be
drafted (similar to those existing in the area of mandatory rules) that would permit, if certain
circumstances are present together (such as the comparison of nationals and foreigners in the process
of the granting of licences), the intervention of the administrative authorisation irrespective of the legal
system applicable to the case (and without this meaning that the possession of a foreign administrative
authorisation would necessarily lead to the effects prescribed in the lex causae)85.

Another possibility which is being considered and may produce interesting results is the
possibility of regarding the legal rules that determine the civil consequences of administrative
authorisations (which are the ones that really limit the ability to bring an action) as mandatory rules 86.

C. Consultation on a preliminary draft Proposal and Proposal for a regulation of the

European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)

It is important to point out that the European scenario described above will be undergoing
substantial changes in the near future, as a consequence of the “communitarisation” of judicial

82 NASSR-ESFAHANI S., Grenzüberschreitender Bestandsschutz für unanfechtbar genehmigte Anlagen, Berlin 1991, pp. 52-66.

83 JAYME E., ‘Haftung bei grenzüberschreitenden Umweltbelastungen’, in: Prävention im Umweltrecht. Heidelberger
Kolloquium; Technologie und Recht, Heidelberg 1988, pp. 216-217; WILHELM G., ‘Ionisierende Strahlung als
grenzüberschreitende Immision’, in: Juristische Blätter 1986, pp. 696-701; DUCHEK A., ‘Umweltrecht’, Österreichischen
Juristentages, Part II, Section IV, Viena 1988, pp. 136-140.

84 Sentence OLG Linz 15-6-1987, Juristische Blätter 1987, pp. 577-580 and a frech summary in: Journal du Droit
International 1991, pp. 432-433.

85 HAGER G., ‘Zur Berücksichtigung öffentlich-rechtlicher Genehmigungen bei Streitigkeiten wegen grenzüberschreitender
Immisionen’, in: RabelsZ 1989, pp. 293-319.

86 WANDT M., ‘Deliktsstatut und Internationales Umwelthaftungsrecht’, Versicherungsrecht 1998, p. 536-537; PETITPIERRE D.,
Zivilrechtliche Haftpflicht für Umweltschädigungen nach schweizerischem Recht. Unter Berücksichtigung der Bestimmungen
von Art. 138 IPRG und Art. 59 a USG (Entwurf), Basel 1993, pp. 177-178.
17
 cooperation in civil matters that was declared in the Amsterdam Treaty 87. The statement in the current
article 65 of the EC Treaty: “Measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-
border implications, to be taken…in so far as necessary for the proper functioning of the internal
market, shall include: promoting the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Member States
concerning the conflict of laws…” inspired the presentation in 2002 of a Preliminary draft Proposal
for a Council Regulation on the Law applicable to non-contractual obligations 88. As is stated in the
Explanatory Memorandum of this same text, “the purpose of this preliminary draft proposal for a
Council Regulation is to launch a public debate on a future Community instrument on the law
applicable to non-contractual obligations, provided by the Vienna Action Plan (point 40.b) and the
Mutual Recognition Programme (point II B 3)” 89 . With regard to its contents, it is held that this
Preliminary draft proposal contains far more elaborate and complete provisions than autonomous rules
such as 10.9 of the Spanish Civil Code90 and it also substantially improves a draft convention
presented in 1998 during the term of the Austrian presidency 91. These recent developments are a
consequence of the considerable influence that has been exercised over the Preliminary draft proposal
by the above-mentioned Proposal of the European Group for Private International Law for a European
Convention on the Law applicable to non-contractual obligations 92.

87 Because of that, some comunitary countries should maybe reconsider the need to continue with the reform of their
autonomous conflict rules. In the same way, some of the new comunitary countries have recently modified the normes ruling
this sector (whose validity could be in danger in the future due to the Rome II iniciative). Besides this, these rules and the
european legislator use different criteria. In this way, the lithuanian rule gives a wide definition of the locus damni, which
means more than the place where stictly direct damages occurred. (nach dem Recht (…) indem die schädlichen Wirkungen
eingetreten sind’). S. RAVLUSEVICIUS P., ‘Die Reform des Internationalen Privatrechts in Litauen’, in: IPRax 2003, pp. 275 and
303). In Eslovenia transboundary torts will be settled by applying the lex loci actus unless the claimant requests the application
of the lex loci damni, if this is foreseable for the tortfeasor (s. GEC-KOROSEC M., ‘Die Reform des slowenischen Internationalen
Privat- und Verfahrensrechts und seine Anpassung an das Recht der Europäischen Union’, in: RabelsZ 2002, pp. 736 and 754).

88 http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/civil/consultation/index_en.htm.

89 About the “communitarisation” of Private International Law, s., BORRÁS A., ‘Derecho Internacional Privado y Tratado de
Amsterdam’, in: REDI 1999, Part II, pp. 383-426.

90 Pointing out the need for reform of the spanish conflict rule s., GONZÁLEZ CAMPOS J. D., ‘La reforma del sistema español de
Derecho Internacional Privado. Algunas propuestas para un debate’, in: REDI 2000, pp. 351-369.

91 Proyecto de Convenio sobre ley aplicable a las obligaciones extracontractuales, Nota de la Presidencia al Grupo ‘Convenio
de Roma II’, Conseil des Ministres du 9 novembre 1998, Doc. 12356/98.

92 The stamp of the GEDIP can be noticed in diverse articles of the Preliminary draft proposal. In this sense, article 14 from the
Preliminary draft proposal copied article 6 of the GEDIP- draft. Also the rules about direct action and scope of the law
applicable were very similar to the GEDIP proposal.

18
 The presentation of this preliminary draft Proposal93 generated a broad and interesting

debate among academic writers and European lobbies 94 . The different opinions about this text have
been considered by the European Commission, which on 22 July 2003 presented a new Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual
obligations (Rome II)95.

Without wishing to be exhaustive, reference will be made below to some of the most
outstanding features of the latest Rome II initiative which, according to its Explanatory Memorandum,
is regarded as complementary to other instruments of Private International Law already in force in the
community (Regulation 44/01 or Rome Convention) and not incompatible with the harmonisation of
the substantive law which is desired to be achieved in the future96 . As a starting point, the great
importance that this text will eventually acquire must be emphasised. As set out in its article 27, the
future Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States 97, which,
in view of the universal character of this proposal (article 2 PR), will see their respective national
conflict rules displaced, as their scope is subsumed in that of the new Regulation98.

In its form, the proposal is divided up into four Chapters (Scope, Uniform Rules, Other
Provisions and Final provisions). In turn, Chapter II is subdivided into three Sections (Rules
applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of a tort or delict - articles 3-8, Rules applicable
to non-contractual obligations arising out of an act other than a tort or delict - article 9 - and Common

93 About this preliminary draft proposal, s. e. g., NOURISSAT C./TREPPOZ E., ‘Quelques observations sur l´avant-projet de
proposition de règlement du Conseil sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles -Rome II-‘, in: Journal du Droit
International 2003, pp. 7-32; RUEDA VALDIVIA R., ‘La unificación europea del derecho conflictual: presente y futuro’, in: La
cooperación judicial en materia civil y la unificación del derecho privado en Europa, Madrid 2003, pp. 169-176.

94 A wide number of different opinions with regard to the Preliminary draft proposal can be found in: Follow-up of the
consultation on a preliminary draft proposal for a Council Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations
("Rome II"), http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/civil/consultation/contributions_en.htm.

95 S. Bruselas, 22.7.2003, COM (2003), 427 final, 2003/0168 (COD), en www.europa.eu.int.

96 In the european sphere has been assumed that the harmonisation of the substantive law is not a short-term prospect. In this
matter, s. MARTÍN CASALS M., ‘El European Group on tort law y la elaboración de unos principios europeos del derecho de la
responsabilidad civil (Grupo Tilburg/Viena o Spier/Koziol)’, in: Derecho Privado Europeo, Madrid 2003, pp. 217-226;
KADNER GRAZIANO T., Europäisches Internationales Deliktsrecht, Tübingen 2003.

97 Article 1.3 of the proposal states that: “Member State means any Member State other than (the United Kingdom, Ireland or)
Denmark”. It means that these latter comunitary countries will go on applying their own rules of conflict to the cases settled
there.

98 In force will keep on some rules of conflict referred to matters which are out of the material scope of Rome II (like nuclear
damage -article 1.2.f Rome II iniciative- in this matter, s. e. g the norm contained in the austrian atomic energy law of 1999,
KISSICH S., ‘Der Ersatz für Nuklearschäden nach der Convention on Supplementary compensation for nuclear damage und dem
österreichischen AtomHG 1999’, in: Österreichische Juristen-Zeitung 1999, pp. 661-673 and 718-723). Likewise in force will
keep on international conventions -which the Member States were already parties when Rome II was adopted-, which, in
relation to particular matters, lay down conflict-of-law rules relating to non-contractual obligations and which are in a list of
Conventions referred to in article 26 Rome II (like the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents and the
Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Products Liability) and also international conventions which unify some aspects
of substantive law, (s, widely, Section II.A).
19
 rules applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of a tort or delict and out of an act other
than a tort or delict - articles 10-17). With regard to the fundamental contents of this initiative (which
on some points recall the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations),
its article 1 details the material scope of the text. Comparing it with the previous text of the
preliminary draft Proposal, it can be seen that this new version does not expressly prohibit the
application of the Regulation to cases of liability incurred in the exercise of public authority 99. On the
other hand, along with matters such as obligations arising out of particular family, partnership or
commercial relationships, the Rome II initiative now adds non-contractual obligations arising out of
nuclear damage to the list of matters excluded from the material scope of the Regulation 100.

With regard to the conflict rules of this Proposal, article 3 lays down a general rule which,
in the opinion of the draftsmen, aims to guarantee certainty in the law and to seek to strike a
reasonable balance between the person claimed to be liable and the person sustaining the damage. The
starting approach of this rule is: “the law applicable to non-contractual obligation shall be the law of
the country in which the damage arises or is likely to arise, irrespective of the country in which the
event giving rise to the damage occurred and irrespective of the country or countries in which the
indirect consequences of that event arise”101. This conflict rule therefore takes the place of the direct
damage as the connecting factor, an approach that recalls the already mentioned interpretation that the
Court of Justice of the European Communities has been making of article 5.3 CB/R 44 in cases such as
Dumez, Marinari or Henkel102.

99 In the future, if doubts about this matter arise, it would be suitable for the Court of Justice of the European Communities to
follow the previous jurisprudence about the Brussels Convention (cases Eurocontrol, Rüffer, Sonntag… ) in order to distinguish
between acts of iure imperii and acts of iure gestionis (and including the latter under the scope of the Rome II Regulation).

100 The explanatory Memorandum states that: “this exclusion is explained by the importance of the economic and State interest
at stake and the Member States´contribution to measures to compensate for nuclear damage in the international scheme of
nuclear liability established by the Paris Convention of 29 July 1960 and the Additional Convention of Brussels of 31 January
1963, the Vienna Convention of 21 May 1963, the Convention on Supplementary Compensation of 12 September 1997 and the
Protocol of 21 September 1988”.

101 A recent example of this conception can be found in the case M. J.-P Pays-Fourvel et autres c. Soc. Axa courtage et autres :
‘la loi applicable est celle du lieu où ce dommage s´est réalisé et non celle du lieu oú ce préjudice moral est subi’ (french Cour
de cassation, 28 octobre 2003, in Rev. crit. dr. int. pr. 2004, pp 83-95).

102 S. SCJEC, 11-1-1990, Case C-220/88, Dumez France and Tracoba v. Hessische Landesbank, Recueil 1990, pp. 49-81.
About this distinction, s. GAUDEMET-TALLON H., in: Rev. crit. dr. int. pr. 1990, pp. 363-379; HUET A., in: Clunet 19 90, pp.
498-503 and FONT SEGURA A., ‘La disociación y los daños indirectos en la aplicación del artículo 5.3 del Convenio de 1968 de
Bruselas’, in: Noticias CE 1990, pp. 131-136. SCJEC, 19-8-1995. Case C-364/93, Antonio Marinari v. Lloyd’s Bank and
Zubaidi Trading Company, Recueil 1995, pp. 2719-2743. In this matter, s. HOHLOCH G., ‘Erfolgsort und Schadenort-
Abgrenzung bei Ansprüchen auf Ersatz von primaren und sonstigen Vermögenschäden’, in: IPRax 1997, pp. 312-314; MARI L.,
‘Problemática del forum damni nella convenzione di Bruxelles del 27 settembre 1968 concernente la competenza
guirisdizionale e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale’, in: Mélanges Fritz Sturm, Part II, Liège 1999,
pp. 1573-1590 and CRESPO HERNÁNDEZ A. ‘Precisión del lugar del hecho dañoso en los supuestos de daños sobrevenidos’, in:
Iniuria 1995, pp. 99-111. S. also footnote 17.A recent example of the application of this conception by national courts is the
following case: Henderson s. Jaouen and another (All England Law Reports 2002, number 2, pp. 705 et seq.): United Kingdow
is the place where the claimant´s health get worse, but english courts have no jurisdiction -ex art. 5.3 Brussels Convention-
because the car accident occurred in France.
20
 The Rome II initiative introduces two exceptions to the application of this lex loci damni,
in art. 3.2 and 3.3: “however, where the person claimed to be liable and the person sustaining damage
both have their habitual residence in the same country when the damage occurs, the non-contractual
obligation shall be governed by the law of that country” and “Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2,
where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the non-contractual obligation is
manifestly more closely connected with another country, the law of that country shall apply. A
manifestly closer connection with another country may be based in particular on a pre-existing
relationship between the parties, such as a contract that is closely connected with the non-contractual
obligation in question”. In the European area, it has already been observed how comparative
legislation and academic writings have increasingly been considering it appropriate that in certain
circumstances the territorial criterion (lex loci delicti) should be replaced by connections like the
common place of residence or the existence of a “substantially closer connection”, given that these
criteria lead to the application of a legal system that is really connected with the characteristics of the
case. In relation to article 3.3, it must be observed that the Explanatory Memorandum considers that
the application of this clause must remain exceptional. Thus, to prevent judges from incorrectly
converting this exception into the starting point of the conflict question103 , the text of the rule
highlights its subsidiary nature (“Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2”) and resorts to the adverbs
“manifestly” and “closely” to stress that the connection with another national system must really be
“significant”104.

After establishing a general rule, the Rome II initiative contains a series of specific conflict
rules, aimed at giving an individual response to certain types of torts. Thus, article 4 refers to product
liability, article 5 establishes a conflict rule for cases of unfair competition, article 6 deals with
violations of privacy and rights relating to the personality, article 7 concerns violations of the
environment and article 8 relates to infringement of intellectual property rights.

Focussing on article 7, this presents a specific rule aimed at determining what is the law
applicable to a claim in the area of environmental damage connected with more than one State. In the
Explanatory Memorandum repeated reference is made to the great importance given in the community
area to environmental protection. In this respect it points out that the rule of article 7 covers not only

103 With regard to the (sometimes, quite wide) degree of discretion that the english Private International Law (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act of 1995 gives to the british courts by means of a clause like the “substantially more appropriate law”, s.
Edmunds s. Simmonds 2001, 1 W.L.R, 1003 (traffic accident caused in Spain, but binded with United Kindow).

104 It´s foreseeable that the solutions of article 3 Rome II would be more predictable than the solutions derived from article 4
of the Rome Convention (whose structure is “closest connection” clause+ presumptions) With this Rome II initiative, the
european legislator wants to “keep the distance” from the flexibility of e.g. the american law (SEDLER R. A., ‘Choice of law in
conflicts torts cases: a third Restatement or rules of choice of law?’, in: Indiana Law Journal 2000, pp. 615-633).
21
 damage to property and persons, but also the difficult subject of damage to the ecology itself 105.
Having regard to the reference that this precept makes to the rule in article 3.1, the cases coming under
this conflict rule will be determined by applying on principle the law of the place where the direct
damage is sustained. This solution is justified by the Commission on the basis of various national
conflict rules that include the same approach106 and by emphasising the appropriate correlation
between this connecting factor and the principles of strict liability and prevention. The innovative
element that this rule now introduces compared with the old article 8 of the preliminary draft proposal
(which established that “the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising from a violation of
the environment shall be the law of the country in whose territory the damage occurs or threatens to
occur”) is the possibility that the person sustaining damage may base his claim on the law of the
country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred, if this law is more favourable to him
than the lex loci damni107 . This option must be viewed in a very positive light 108, because the
legislator thereby grants a favourable treatment to the damaged parties (whose wishes he takes into
account)109 and makes the “polluter pays” principle more real110.

In the framework of the analysis of article 7 of the Rome II Regulation, it must also be
pointed out that there are a number of questions that may be considered controversial. Thus, looking to
the wording of article 7, it can be seen that the clauses that give a greater degree of flexibility in
articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Rome II initiative are not applicable in cases of violation of the environment.
Consequently, a claim in this matter will be determined by applying the lex loci damni or the lex loci
actus, unless the parties have chosen – in compliance with the requirements laid down in article 10 of

105 Against this solution, v, BOUZA VIDAL N./VINAIXA MIQUEL M., ‘La responsabilidad por daños ambientales transfronterizos:
propuesta de regulación europea y derecho internacional privado”, in: Anuario español de derecho internacional privado 2003,
pp. 75-106. In this latter sense, the Proposal of the European Group for Private International Law was more restrictive: Article
4:“it shall be presumed that a non-contractual obligation is most closely connected in case of damage or injury to persons or
goods, resulting from harm to the environment, with the country in which the damage or injury occurred or is likely to occur”.

106 The statement of the Explanatory Memorandum, saying that article 10.9 spanish Civil Code also applies the solution of the
law of the place where the loss is sustained, is considered too risky, because there is no unified spanish jurisprudence or
doctrine in this matter.

107 The Explanatory Memorandum clarifies that “the question of the stage in proceedings at which the victim must exercise his
option is a question for the procedural law of the forum, each Member State havin its own rules to determine the moment from
which it is no longer possible to file new claims”.

108 In favor of such a change, s. e. g, “Commentaire au texte de l´avant-projet de proposition de Règlement CE sur la loi
applicable aux obligations non contractuelles”, written by the Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Autònoma of Barcelona en http://
europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/civil/consultation/contributions/univ_aut_barcel_fr.pdf.

109 In the recent opinion of the European Economic and Social Comité on Rome II, it is stated: “Clearly, by prividing an
exception to the general rule which, disguised as a conflict of law provision, allows the injured party the choice of applicable
law, the Commission is pursuing objectives which actually have nothing to do with conflict of laws, but which are rather
intended to encourage potential environmental polluters to take environmental protection very seriously by threatening them
with the application of a more stringent system of substantive law”. INT/209, 2 June 2004 (in www.europa.eu.int).

110 Prefering however the single solution of the lex loci damni, s. PALAO MORENO G., ‘Hacia la unificación de las normas de
conflicto en materia de obligaciones extracontractuales en Europa (una visión crítica del Anteproyecto de Propuesta de
Reglamento Roma II)’, in: Derecho patrimonial europeo, Navarra 2003, p. 293.
22
 the Regulation - to submit the non-contractual obligation to the law of their choice. On this point it
would not be held to be inappropriate that some cases of cross-border environmental damage might
be allowed to be determined on the basis of the criterion contained in article 3.3 (general exception
clause - closest connection), because this could be useful in environmental cases where there is a pre-
existing relationship between the parties111. It must also be observed that the wording of article 7 PR
(“the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred”) is in contrast with the reference
to preventive actions contained in article 3.1 PR (“or is likely to arise”). Despite this omission, it is
held that the connecting factor of the locus actus would also cover prohibitory claims where the
damage is still hypothetical. It cannot however be overlooked that formulas such as “or is likely to
arise” generate fears from the corporate and insurance point of view, because it may encourage the
filing of legal claims112. Finally, some voices have been raised questioning the need for the existence
of a rule like article 7 of the Rome II initiative. In this respect, it is argued that if the violation of the
environment gives rise to material damage or bodily injury, these will be settled by recourse to the
general rule, and that if what is caused is real damage to the biodiversity, then for these cases
community provisions with an administrative rather than a civil law profile will come into play 113.
Against such argumentation, it is held that if the community legislator has decided to give expression
in this area to a vertical fragmentation of conflict rules, (following in the footsteps, for example, of the
Swiss conflict rules), then article 7 of the initiative must be maintained, because it gives a suitable
response to a typology of cases that enjoy sufficient substantiality.

Turning now to the Common rules applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of
a tort or delict and out of an act other than a tort or delict, article 10 PR authorises – except in cases
of infringement of intellectual property rights - the choice ex post of the law applicable to the non-
contractual obligation. The role of freedom of choice in this matter implies an interesting recognition
which will no doubt have repercussions on future legal practice. The exercise of the optio legis is
limited in a number of ways in this rule, some of which are clearly inspired by the Rome Convention.

Because of the effects they may have on the determination of cross-border environmental
cases, reference must also be made to rules of the Rome II initiative such as the following114 : article
12 refers to mandatory rules and is not only concerned with the question of the mandatory rules of the

111 S., Section II. B. 2.b.

112 In this sense, s. Deutscher Industrie- und Handelskammer en http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/civil/

consultation/contributions/feder_german_industries_de.pdf and the example exposed by the Government of the United
Kingdom en http://www.dca.gos. uk/consult/general/eurocom.htm.

113 S. the document of the austrian Wirtschaftskammer in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/civil/consultation/

contributions/wirtschaftskammer_osterreichd_de.pdf and in the same sense, s. austrian Bundesministerium für Justiz en http://
europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/civil/consultation/contributions/minist_justic_aut_de.pdf.

114 In this respect, s. Comments by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International law on the
provisions relating to environmental damage en http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/civil/consultation/contributions/
bureau_perm_conference_lahaye_en.pdf.
23
 law of the forum – as the preliminary draft Proposal was - but also introduces a well received
paragraph – worded in a very similar way to the Rome Convention - relating to mandatory rules of
another country. The remaining provisions of this Section deal with rules of safety and conduct, direct
action against the insurer of the person liable, subrogation and multiple liability, formal validity and
burden of proof.

Also, because of its possible repercussions on environmental claims, Chapter three

highlights the fact that article 4 of the preliminary draft Proposal (concerned with offering alternative
applicable laws for cases of tort occurring in areas not subject to the territorial sovereignty of a State)
115 has been removed from the Rome II initiative and that, on the other hand, this latest text contains
article 18, which establishes a fiction that allows it to be considered that in certain circumstances a
series of enclaves and means of transport shall be treated as being the territory of a State116 . It should
also be noted how the Rome II Regulation expressly considers in article 24 the question of non-
compensatory damages and declares that the application of a provision of the law designated by Rome
which has the effect of causing exemplary or punitive damages to be awarded will be contrary to
Community public policy 117.

III. Concluding Remarks

After testing that the present unified sustantive law is not completely self-sufficient to
solve environmental problems with international effects, this article studies the different conflictual
solutions given in Europe to transboundary pollution by the national rules of conflict and
jurisprudence. The modernity and flexibility of some european autonomous systems like the german,
has been an interesting starting point for the European Union, who is nowadays devoted to the
elaboration of a regulation on the law applicable to non contractual obligations. The implementation of
this project would mean a very decisive step in this matter. On the one hand, the Rome II iniciative is
an innovative example of the communitary goal of legislative harmonisation in the conflict-of-laws
sector. On the other hand, the entry into force of Rome II would substantially improve the conflictual
tort regulation of countries like Spain (where the autonomous rule of conflict doesn´t accept ways of
weakening the lex loci delicti). With regard to environmental damage, article 7 of the Rome II
iniciative offers a well balanced solution in this matter: application of the law of the place where the

115 Pointing out the defects of this rule, s. Bar Council of England and Wales, en http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/
civil/consultation/contributions/bar_council_position_en.pdf

116 The legislator doesn´t make use of the conflictual way and gives an autonomous (and wide) definition of the term
“territory of a State”.

117 With regard to the granting of punitive damages in USA in cases of pollution, s., BOSTON G. W., Punitive damages in tort
law, second part, specific tort actions, chapter 22, Nueva York 1993, pp. 1-71; ACKERMAN P., ‘Some don’t like it hot: Louisiana
eliminates punitive damages for environmental torts’, in: Tulane law review 1997, pp. 327-350.
24
 direct damage is sustained, unless the damaged person bases his claim on the law of the country in
which the event giving rise to the damage occurred. It is desirable that this article and the suggested
option would be supported by the european legislator, because it deserves to take part in the future
Rome II Regulation.

Katia FACH GÓMEZ**

**** Assistant Lecturer in Private International Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Zaragoza (Spain).

25