Abstract
A government bill which includes a special compensation regime for producers of non-GM crops contaminated by GM organisms was adopted by the French Senate on 8 February 20081. At the time of writing in February 2008, it is awaiting debate in the National Assembly.
This bill replaces, and slightly modifies, the liability regime which had been proposed in a previous bill in 2006. That bill, adopted by the Senate, was withdrawn before being presented to the National Assembly, following the presidential and parliamentary elections of 2007.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
The 2006 bill had proposed the setting up of a guarantee fund financed by a levy on GM crop producers. This fund was to be established for a temporary five year period in order to make up for an initial lack of availability of insurance cover. The government considers that insurers are now in a position to offer adequate cover, and that sufficient alternatives such as bank guarantees and voluntary risk funds amongst GM producers exist. Rapport de la commission des affaires économiques, 29. 1. 2008.
See, for example, Ph. Brun, Responsabilité civile extracontractuelle (2005) 522.
“Graves, précises et concordantes” Cour de cassation, 2ème chambre civile (Civ. 2e) 14. 12. 1965, Recueil Dalloz (D.) 1966, 453; Cour de cassation, première chambre civile (Civ. 1re) 24. 1. 2006, Jurisclasseur périodique (JCP) G II 10082, note L. Grynbaum (causal link between growth hormones and Creuzfeldt-Jacob disease).
J. Flour/ J.-L. Auber/ E. Savaux, Droit civil. Les obligations. Le fait juridique (2005) 163.
G. Viney/ P. Jourdain, Traité de droit civil. Les conditions de la responsabilité (2006) no. 369.
Civ 2e 11. 3. 1976, JCP 1976, IV, 157; Cour de cassation, 3ème chambre civile (Civ. 3e) 2. 12. 1980, JCP 1981, IV, 69.
For example, Tribunal de grande instance (TGI) Bordeaux 28. 2. 1968: a company was found liable for damage to the claimant’s fish stocks even though the damage was partly due to effluent coming from neighbouring houses.
Cass. civ. 2e 2. 4. 1997, Bulletin des arrêts de la Cour de cassation, chambres civiles (Bull. civ.) II, no. 112; Cass. civ. 2e 5. 6. 1957, D. 1957, 493, note R. Savatier.
Cour d’appel (CA) Douai 25. 4. 1991. Prieu, 921, G. Viney, Les principaux aspects de la responsabilité civile des entreprises pour atteinte à l’environnement en droit français, JCP 1996, 3900, no. 10.
G. Viney (Les principaux aspects de la responsabilité civile des entreprises pour atteinte à l’environnement en droit français, JCP 1996, no. 10. supra fn. 20) 41.
Cass. civ. 23. 3. 1982, D. 1983, Informations rapides Recueil Dalloz (IR) 18, obs. A. Robert, Civ. 2e 9. 11. 1986, Bull. civ. II, no. 172.
Cass 2e 22. 10. 1964, a manufacturer of castor oil was found liable despite the fact that he had obtained the relevant administrative authorisation for his activity. (G. Viney/ P. Jourdain, supra fn. 15, no. 952.)
M. Prieur, Droit de l’environnement (2004) no. 1159. 25 CA Paris 8e chambre, 26. 6. 1980, jurisdata no. 098444.
G. Viney/ P. Jourdain (supra fn. 15) 30–33.
Cass. civ. 25. 5. 1948, Revue critique de droit international privé (Rev. cr.) 1949, 89.
Cass. civ. 1re 11. 5. 1999; Cass. civ. 1re 28 oct. 2003. T. Vignal, Droit international privé (2005) 216.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag/Wien
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Taylor, S. (2008). Economic Loss Caused by GMOs in France. In: Koch, B.A. (eds) Economic Loss Caused by Genetically Modified Organisms. Tort and Insurance Law, vol 24. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-77988-0_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-77988-0_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-211-77987-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-211-77988-0