Company Secretary of ArcelorMittal South Africa vs. Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance Pays/Territoire Afrique du Sud Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Nov 26, 2014 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa Siège de la cour Bloemfontein Juge M.S. NavsaS.A. MajiedtH.K. SaldulkerR.S. MathopoB.C. Mocumie Numéro de référence 69/2014 Mot clé Changement de climat Substances dangereuses Qualité de l'air/pollution de l'air Accès-à-l'information Participation du public Résumé Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA), a non-profit association, made two requests for information to ArcelorMittal (AM), one of South Africa’s major industrial corporations, including on the company’s process and strategic approach to environmental protection. AM refused both requests. The South African Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) sets obligations to provide access to information. For private bodies, the requestor must identify the right they seek to exercise or protect and provide an explanation of why the requested record would be required to do so. VEJA requested records (1) to ensure AM carries out its obligations under national law and that it has preventative and remediative pollution plans to protect Section 24 rights under the Constitution; and (2) to ensure AM closed and rehabilitated its former site where hazardous materials were previously dumped. In recognizing the dangers of global warming and the steps to be taken in response to reduce carbon emissions, the Court agreed with the decision of the Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg, in favour of VEJA, and dismissed AM’s appeal. The Court took into consideration the nature of AC’s operations and its consequences, which affect persons and communities in the immediate vicinity and are ultimately of importance to the country as a whole. The Court emphasized the world’s increasing ecological sensitivity and the significance of public participation in environmental issues and corporate activities for present and future generations. Environmental Legal Questions: Did VEJA fulfil the criteria in its requests for information? Section 24 of the Constitution guarantees everyone a “right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being,” and to have the “environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations,” including through reasonable legislative and other measures that “prevent pollution and ecological degradation.” Upon request of the information, VEJA stated the necessity for the documents to protect Section 24 rights and for the public interest; and to ensure that the operations of AC were in accordance with the law. The Court ruled that this request was in line with the requirements under the PAIA. Was AM obliged to release these two records to VEJA? The Court found AM obliged to release the requested records. The judgment states the importance of public involvement and a culture of openness in environmental issues. Texte intégral South Africa - Arcelormittal v Vaal.pdf 184.html