Municipal Government of Salto vs MVOTMA and others Country/Territory Uruguay Type of court National - higher court Date May 9, 2012 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name Tribunal de Apelaciones en lo Civil de 6ºTº Seat of court Montevideo Judge Dra. Selva Anabella KLETT FERNANDEZ, Dr. Felipe Javier HOUNIE SANCHEZ, Dra. Elena MARTIÍNEZ Reference number 106/2012 Language Spanish Subject Land & soil, Legal questions, Water Keyword Resource/damage valuation Abstract A case concerning environmental damages caused by the dam of Salto Grande and their compensations by the Uruguayan State. Municipal Government of Salto acting as the plaintiff required the court to condemn the Uruguayan State through the Ministry of Environment to compensate the irreversible damages resulting from the exploitation of the dams. The plaintiff pointed out that the exploitation of the dam and the variations of the water flow of the Uruguay River resulting from it have had for consequences to increase the erosion of the coasts, flooded some fertile lands and changed the microclimate. He also explained that those damages are irreversible and cannot be attenuated which reinforce the need for a financial compensation. The Uruguayan State claimed that the time delay to ask for financial compensation was expired since the dam started to be exploited in 1979 and the Municipality had waited more than 20 years to assert its rights. But the municipality highlighted the fact that if the dam was built in 1979, the damages caused are permanent and are an ongoing process. Therefore, the time delay should run only from the moment the activities causing a damages stop, which is not the case here as the dam is still in activity. The court ruled in favour of the Uruguayan State as it considered that time delay in question was not a prescription and therefore was not running from the moment the damage took place (which is in this case permanent) but from the moment the dam started to be exploited in 1979. Therefore, the Municipal Government of Salto request was dismissed. Full text SENTENCIA Nº 106 2012.pdf