# C_2009019EN.01001501.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 6 November 2008 — Dow Italia Divisione Commerciale srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

(Case C-479/08)

(2009/C 19/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dow Italia Divisione Commerciale srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle preclude national legislation, and in particular Article 2050 of the [Italian] Civil Code, which allows the Public Authority, where a number of industrial operators operate within the contaminated site, to impose on them the burdens of the decontamination of that site, without prior ascertainment on an individual basis of their respective responsibility for the pollution, or in any event merely because they are deemed accountable by virtue of their ownership of the means of production and are therefore subject to strict liability for the damage they cause to the environment or may they in any event be required to reinstate the area around the widespread pollution identified there even where no material causation has been established for the pollution and there is no proportional basis for it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle preclude national legislation, and in particular Article 2050 of the [Italian] Civil Code, which allows the Public Authority, where a number of industrial operators operate within the contaminated site, to impose on them the burdens of the decontamination of that site, without prior ascertainment on an individual basis of their respective responsibility for the pollution, or in any event merely because they are deemed accountable by virtue of their ownership of the means of production and are therefore subject to strict liability for the damage they cause to the environment or may they in any event be required to reinstate the area around the widespread pollution identified there even where no material causation has been established for the pollution and there is no proportional basis for it?

| 2. | In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, may the Administration require the costs of safety measures, decontamination and environmental reinstatement to be borne by persons established in contaminated areas, without there having been any prior ascertainment of the existence of a causal link between the conduct and the pollution identified? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, may the Administration require the costs of safety measures, decontamination and environmental reinstatement to be borne by persons established in contaminated areas, without there having been any prior ascertainment of the existence of a causal link between the conduct and the pollution identified?

| 3. | In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and the principle of proportionality, may persons within contaminated areas be required to undertake action that does not directly reflect their individual contributions and is not proportionate to such contributions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and the principle of proportionality, may persons within contaminated areas be required to undertake action that does not directly reflect their individual contributions and is not proportionate to such contributions?

| 4. | In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and the principle of proportionality, may persons who have not contributed to the release of substances polluting the environment be made subject to obligations involving safety, decontamination and environmental-reinstatement measures, the costs and actions involved being equivalent, if not identical, to those imposed on persons who, in contrast, have in fact contributed to the release of substances polluting the environment? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and the principle of proportionality, may persons who have not contributed to the release of substances polluting the environment be made subject to obligations involving safety, decontamination and environmental-reinstatement measures, the costs and actions involved being equivalent, if not identical, to those imposed on persons who, in contrast, have in fact contributed to the release of substances polluting the environment?

| 5. | In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and the principle of proportionality, may the Administration require action to be taken where there has been no assessment of the appropriateness of the solutions imposed in the light of the sacrifice required of the private individual concerned, thereby prescribing measures that are wider or go further than those strictly necessary for attainment of the aim which that authority is required to achieve? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and the principle of proportionality, may the Administration require action to be taken where there has been no assessment of the appropriateness of the solutions imposed in the light of the sacrifice required of the private individual concerned, thereby prescribing measures that are wider or go further than those strictly necessary for attainment of the aim which that authority is required to achieve?

---