La situation de notre planète est alarmante, car le réchauffement climatique, la pollution de l'air, de la terre et des eaux, les catastrophes écologiques sans précédent, provoquent la disparition de nombreuses espèces de la biodiversité et menacent la capacité de survie de l'homme sur terre. Jadis, les atteintes à l'environnement ont toujours été prises en compte sous le prisme des préjudices anthropocentriques, c'est-à-dire ceux qui affectent l'homme et ses biens. De nos jours sous l'impulsion d'une éthique écologique, défendue par les tenants de la conception écocentrique qui prônent la responsabilité de l'Homme envers les biens environnementaux, une grande partie de la doctrine considère les atteintes à l'environnement comme un préjudice écologique pur. Cette notion de préjudice écologique pur peut se définir comme la conséquence dommageable d'une atteinte au patrimoine commun environnemental, d'un certain seuil de gravité et découlant d'un fait imputable à l'homme. La spécificité des caractères du préjudice écologique pur fait que sa reconnaissance et sa réparation sont difficilement appréhendées par le droit de la responsabilité environnementale. La réparation du préjudice écologique pur est prise en compte, au niveau européen, par la directive du 21 avril 2004, qui a créé un mécanisme novateur de responsabilité environnementale, transposée en France par la loi du 1er août 2008 qui instaure une police administrative de la prévention et de la réparation des dommages à l'environnement. Le juge judiciaire français sensible aux atteintes écologiques, a toujours tenté de réparer le préjudice écologique pur sur le fondement du droit commun de la responsabilité civile, dont les règles étaient inadaptées à la spécificité de ce préjudice. La loi sur la biodiversité du 20 juillet 2016 a consacré la reconnaissance de la notion de préjudice écologique et sa réparation en nature ou pécuniaire dans le Code civil français, pour ainsi promouvoir la protection de l'environnement. La prise en compte de l'environnement comme patrimoine commun de l'humanité, l'apport du droit subjectif et fondamental à l'environnement, l'adaptation du régime de la responsabilité civile par la mise en place d'une action environnementale de groupe et l'instauration des dommages-intérêts punitifs, permettent de surpasser les exigences d'un préjudice personnel, certain et direct et de mieux réparer le préjudice écologique pur.

The increasing Europeanisation of the law of delict/torts has produced textbooks, casebooks, monographs, and also sets of model rules of a genuinely European character. A major gap still existing today relates to the experiences gathered in the national legal systems over the past decades. The present work attempts to fill this gap for one key element of tort law: the notion of damage. It thus does what the previous volume in the ‘Digest of European Tort Law’ series did for another key element, ie natural causation. Once again, the publication contains a selection of the most important cases decided in 26 states across Europe as well as by the European Court of Justice. For each case the facts and the relevant court decision are presented, and the decision is analysed within the wider context of the development of the respective legal system. In addition, the editors provide comparative analyses of the case law reported in this volume concerning all the specific problems raised under the heading of damage. The publication also looks into how key cases would be resolved under the European model rules drafted in the field of tort law; and it also highlights cases from earlier periods of legal history. The editors believe that the material gathered here may provide guidance for an organic convergence of the national legal systems in Europe. It constitutes the basis of an acquis commun that is infinitely richer (though also much more complex) than the rather bland and abstract concepts contained in national codifications, European legislation, and the modern model rules.

The Association Henri Capitant des Amis de la Culture Juridique Française and the Société de législation comparée joined the academic network on European Contract Law in 2005 to work on the elaboration of a "common terminology" and on "guiding principles" as well as to propose a revised version of the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL). The results of this work were sent to the European Commission and have already been published in French. The English translation is now being published by sellier.elp. This work could contribute to the wider European project. The part on the guiding principles could be a component of the CFR, in the form of "black letter" model rules or recitals. The part on terminology is, in itself, useful for the elaboration of the final various linguistic versions of the CFR. It finds its place within the materials which will accompany the model rules. Last but by no means least, the revised version of the PECL should be considered by the European institutions as an alternative set of model rules on contract law.

Derived from the renowned multi-volume International Encyclopaedia of Laws, this book provides ready access to how the legal dimension of prevention against harm and loss allocation is treated in France. This traditional branch of law not only tackles questions which concern every lawyer, whatever his legal expertise, but also concerns each person’s most fundamental rights on a worldwide scale. Following a general introduction that probes the distinction between tort and crime and the relationship between tort and contract, the monograph describes how the concepts of fault and unlawfulness, and of duty of care and negligence, are dealt with in both the legislature and the courts. The book then proceeds to cover specific cases of liability, such as professional liability, liability of public bodies, abuse of rights, injury to reputation and privacy, vicarious liability, liability of parents and teachers, liability for handicapped persons, product liability, environmental liability, and liability connected with road and traffic accidents. Principles of causation, grounds of justification, limitations on recovery, assessment of damages and compensation, and the role of private insurance and social security are all closely considered. The work gives an extensive picture of the current state of law and a first indication on the future French tort law, based on the last Government proposal for a comprehensive reform of the civil liability rules. Its succinct yet scholarly nature, as well as the practical quality of the information it provides, make this book a valuable resource for lawyers in France. Academics and researchers will also welcome this very useful guide, and will appreciate its value not only as a contribution to comparative law but also as a stimulus to harmonization of the rules on tort.

This book provides a comparative perspective on one of the most intriguing developments in law: the influence of basic rights and human rights in private law. It analyzes the application of basic rights and human rights, which are traditionally understood as public law rights, in private law, and discusses the related spillover effects and changing perspectives in legal doctrine and practice. It provides examples where basic rights and human rights influence judicial reasoning and lead to changes of legislation in contract law, tort law, property law, family law, and copyright law. Providing both context and background analysis for any critical examination of the horizontal effect of fundamental rights in private law, the book contributes to the current debate on an important issue that deserves the attention of legal practitioners, scholars, judges and others involved in the developments in a variety of the world’s jurisdictions. This book is based on the General Report and national reports commissioned by the International Academy of Comparative Law and written for the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law in Vienna, Austria, in the summer of 2014.