abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

這頁面沒有繁體中文版本,現以English顯示

內容有以下的語言版本: English, français

文章

2022年3月10日

作者:
Sherpa & Friends of the Earth,
作者:
// Amis de la Terre France et Sherpa

French Supreme Court allows NGOs to access evidence in Perenco environmental case for alleged environmental harm in the DRC

"Victory over the transnational corporation Perenco: a step forward in the fight against opacity and for access to justice", 10 March 2022

[On 9 March 2022 the] Court of Cassation (French supreme court) ruled in favour of Sherpa and Friends of the Earth France in their legal dispute with Perenco … The civil society organisations (CSOs) had requested access to internal documents held by Perenco France, to determine its role in activities denounced as harmful to the environment in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Court ruled that the possibility for the CSOs to file this case was to be decided according to French law, and not foreign law. Welcomed by Sherpa and Friends of the Earth France, this ruling has the merit of not further hindering access to evidence for CSOs wishing to take legal action against transnational corporations.

…As the only oil operator present in DRC, Perenco has been denounced in numerous reports, investigations and calls by the Congolese Senate, local and international CSOs for serious environmental and health violations.

Sherpa and Friends of the Earth France have been willing to take legal action to determine Perenco’s responsibility for the pollution they have denounced, and to obtain compensation if applicable…

Perenco argued that the admissibility of the organisations’ legal action before the French judge had to be decided according to Congolese law, which could have prevented them from accessing the evidence requested. For the CSOs, it was instead to be decided according to French law, which explicitly allows action for compensation for ecological damage. The Court of cassation ruled in favour of the CSOs.

For the CSOs, it is reassuring that the Court of cassation has rejected Perenco’s restrictive approach, which defended its economic interests to the detriment of environmental protection.