Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Stora Enso

Pays/Territoire
Suède
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Jui 21, 2004
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Högsta Domstolen
Siège de la cour
Stockholm
Numéro de référence
NJA 2004 s. 421 (NJA 2004:48)
Sujet
Questions juridiques, Déchets et substances dangereuses
Résumé

Stora Enso Hylte AB applied to the Environmental Court for a permit to expand the activities of their paper and pulp mill.  The relevant permits were first granted from the Environmental Court but, when appealed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental Court of Appeal imposed a probationary period during which Stora Enso was to further investigate if it could limit the effect on the environment of its transports and energy use with the help of the regulatory authority and the Environmental Protection Agency. Thus, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the case before the Supreme Court the focus was solely on the question of whether transports to and from an environmentally hazardous activity was included in the scope of the Environmental Code and whether the authority granting the permit could include conditions for transports occurring outside of the area for the main activity. Conditions can be set in relation to permits, as stipulated in chapter 16 section 2 of the Environmental Code. If the effects of an activity is not yet certain, a probationary period can be established in which the activity can be commenced while the activity is further assessed before appropriate conditions can be established. In accordance with chapter 16 section 7 of the Environmental Code, attention shall be paid to other activities that are likely to be necessary for operations in connection to cases under the Environmental Code. Hence, the Environmental Protection Agency was of the opinion that the probationary period with special conditions could be applied also to transports outside of the area of activity.

The Supreme Court, based on the legislative history of the Environmental Code, came to the conclusion that such transports can be included in the scope, but that careful considerations have to be made in every individual case. The Court furthermore meant that it must be possible to grant permits with conditions regarding transports and other connected activities and also to use the option of a probationary period to assess necessary conditions.

The Supreme Court, moreover, found that is important to delimit the number of connected activities in a reasonable way to those with an immediate connection to the original activity. The conditions must also be of such a nature that the applicant has a legal and actual possibility of fulfilling them. The Court stated that the applicant was not obliged to take responsibility for environmental effects occurring far away from the facilities of the applicant, and where the applicant’s transports were only a small fraction of total transports.

 

Nonetheless, the Supreme Courts came to the conclusion that in this particular case a probationary period would not be necessary, as the applicant had already accounted for the transport methods used. The procedures mentioned should not be used for the sole purpose of increasing the environmental standard of transports, but when the environmental effects are so unclear that a probationary period is necessary.

Texte intégral
NJA 2004 s. 421.pdf