Advanced

Ansvar för avhjälpande av förorenat område vid verksamhetsöverlåtelse

Sandberg, Jonas LU (2013) JURM01 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Föreliggande uppsats kommer ta sin utgångspunkt från principen inom svensk miljörätt om att förorenaren betalar, Polluter Pays Principle. Miljöbalkens mål är att minimera den negativa effekt på människor och miljö som mänsklig verksamhet för med sig. För att nå detta mål uppställer miljöbalken olika preventiva och reparativa regler. I 10 kapitlet miljöbalken återfinns reparativa regler om vem som bär ansvaret när en miljöskada ska avhjälpas. I första led är det verksamhetsutövaren som är ansvarig, denna ska då bedriva eller ha bedrivit en verksamhet eller vidtagit en åtgärd som orsakat en föroreningsskada eller allvarlig miljöskada.

Att olika verksamheter byter hand sker inte alltför sällan, samma verksamhet kan ha olika ägare. I... (More)
Föreliggande uppsats kommer ta sin utgångspunkt från principen inom svensk miljörätt om att förorenaren betalar, Polluter Pays Principle. Miljöbalkens mål är att minimera den negativa effekt på människor och miljö som mänsklig verksamhet för med sig. För att nå detta mål uppställer miljöbalken olika preventiva och reparativa regler. I 10 kapitlet miljöbalken återfinns reparativa regler om vem som bär ansvaret när en miljöskada ska avhjälpas. I första led är det verksamhetsutövaren som är ansvarig, denna ska då bedriva eller ha bedrivit en verksamhet eller vidtagit en åtgärd som orsakat en föroreningsskada eller allvarlig miljöskada.

Att olika verksamheter byter hand sker inte alltför sällan, samma verksamhet kan ha olika ägare. I praxis har det visat sig att den som förvärvar en verksamhet blir ansvarig för avhjälpande av en miljöskada som den tidigare verksamheten redan var belastad med, även om den del som orsakat miljöskadan hade upphört vid tiden för överlåtelsen. Dock krävs det att förvärvaren blir verksamhetsutövare av en och samma verksamhet som överlåtaren och fortsätter bedriva denna i väsäntligt oförändrat skick. Det verkar inte behöva vara fråga om exakt samma verksamhet.

I ljuset av den praxis som vuxit fram blir begreppen verksamhet samt verksamhetsutövare, som uttrycks i 10 kapitlet 2 § miljöbalken, viktiga att definiera då innebörden av dem är centrala för att avgöra vem som kan tänkas bära ett ansvar för avhjälpande av en miljöskada. Det existerar inte någon klar definition i miljöbalken om vad som ska läggas i dessa begrepp. (Less)
Abstract
This thesis will be based on the Polluter Pays Principle within Swedish environmental law. The main objective of the Swedish Environmental Code, named Miljöbalken, is to minimize the negative effect that any “human activity” may cause humans and/or the environment. In order to fulfill its objective the Code provides for preventive as well as reparative rules. Chapter 10 of the Code sets out rules regarding who is to be held liable for the environmental damage and the costs for restoring the same. In first instance, it is the entity who is engaged in, or has been engaged in, the “activity” that caused the environmental damage, who should be responsible for the restitution.

However, every so often companies change ownership and... (More)
This thesis will be based on the Polluter Pays Principle within Swedish environmental law. The main objective of the Swedish Environmental Code, named Miljöbalken, is to minimize the negative effect that any “human activity” may cause humans and/or the environment. In order to fulfill its objective the Code provides for preventive as well as reparative rules. Chapter 10 of the Code sets out rules regarding who is to be held liable for the environmental damage and the costs for restoring the same. In first instance, it is the entity who is engaged in, or has been engaged in, the “activity” that caused the environmental damage, who should be responsible for the restitution.

However, every so often companies change ownership and structure. A company may also have several of different owners. Case law has shown that the one who acquires the company is the one that will be held liable for the restitution of the environmental damage even if the damage was caused by the previous “operator”. This rule also applies if the part of the “activity” that caused the damage was ceased on the time of the acquisition. However, it is required that one who acquires will become the “operator” of one of the same “activities” that the previous owner pursued, and that the new owner will continue to pursue this without changing it in a substantial way. It does not have to be the exact same “activity”.

In light of the case law that has evolved it is evident that the concepts of “activity” and “operator”, as is set out in Chapter 10 of the Code, will be paramount to define in order to determine who is to be held liable for restitution of an environmental damage. However, today the Code does not provide for a clear definition on how these concepts should be interpreted. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Sandberg, Jonas LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Liability for remedying of polluted area in connection with an asset transfer
course
JURM01 20131
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Avhjälpande
language
Swedish
id
3971416
date added to LUP
2013-08-28 09:18:48
date last changed
2013-08-28 09:18:48
@misc{3971416,
  abstract     = {This thesis will be based on the Polluter Pays Principle within Swedish environmental law. The main objective of the Swedish Environmental Code, named Miljöbalken, is to minimize the negative effect that any “human activity” may cause humans and/or the environment. In order to fulfill its objective the Code provides for preventive as well as reparative rules. Chapter 10 of the Code sets out rules regarding who is to be held liable for the environmental damage and the costs for restoring the same. In first instance, it is the entity who is engaged in, or has been engaged in, the “activity” that caused the environmental damage, who should be responsible for the restitution. 

However, every so often companies change ownership and structure. A company may also have several of different owners. Case law has shown that the one who acquires the company is the one that will be held liable for the restitution of the environmental damage even if the damage was caused by the previous “operator”. This rule also applies if the part of the “activity” that caused the damage was ceased on the time of the acquisition. However, it is required that one who acquires will become the “operator” of one of the same “activities” that the previous owner pursued, and that the new owner will continue to pursue this without changing it in a substantial way. It does not have to be the exact same “activity”. 

In light of the case law that has evolved it is evident that the concepts of “activity” and “operator”, as is set out in Chapter 10 of the Code, will be paramount to define in order to determine who is to be held liable for restitution of an environmental damage. However, today the Code does not provide for a clear definition on how these concepts should be interpreted.},
  author       = {Sandberg, Jonas},
  keyword      = {Avhjälpande},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ansvar för avhjälpande av förorenat område vid verksamhetsöverlåtelse},
  year         = {2013},
}