Following a referral from the Minister for the Environmental Transition, the Conseil d’État overturned the ruling of the Douai Administrative Court, which had found that the State had failed in its obligation to monitor the former Metaleurop metallurgical site and had ordered it to pay compensation for the damage resulting from this failure. The Conseil d’État considered that the Administrative Court of Appeal, basing its decision solely on the finding of heavy metal pollution on land adjacent to the factory, did not specify how the State, which had subjected the factory to regular and increasingly precise supervision and monitoring from 1934 until it closed in 2003, had failed to fulfil its obligation to enforce the legislation governing listed facilities. The case was referred back to the Douai Administrative Court, which will have to issue a new ruling.
Residents living near the former Metaleurop Nord metallurgical site brought an action before the Lille Administrative Court and then the Douai Administrative Court of Appeal, 15 years after the factory had closed, to demand clean-up work and compensation for damage suffered as a result of exposure to heavy metals and contamination of their land. In May 2024, the Douai Administrative Court of Appeal ruled that the State had been negligent in monitoring this classified facility. Following an appeal from the Minister for the Environmental Transition and Territorial Cohesion, the Conseil d’État overturned the Administrative Court’s decision and referred the case back to the same court.
The French Environmental Code entrusts the State, as part of its policing of facilities listed for environmental protection, with the responsibility of protecting a number of interests such as the surrounding area, health, public sanitation, agriculture and the environment. As such, when it issues an operating licence for a listed facility, it is responsible for associating this licence with specific requirements to prevent risks that may arise from its operation. It is also responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements, and making sure they are appropriate for the situation, by adapting the frequency and form of inspections to take account of the nature, dangers and size of the facility.
In this case, as noted by the Administrative Court of Appeal in its ruling, the State exercised its policing powers by continuously supervising the factory’s activities, in an increasingly precise manner. Around 60 prefectural orders have been issued since 1934, calling for technical measures to limit atmospheric emissions, install sensors outside the site and carry out studies. New studies conducted in the late 1990s also led to the operator being ordered to comply with the requirements set out in the legislation. Orders laying down emergency measures for polluted land were issued in 2002 and 2003. Lastly, eight reports by inspectors of listed facilities, written between 1969 and 2003, show that the State, mindful of the issue of atmospheric emissions, had required the installation of dust collectors and filters and called for studies of technical methods to remedy the atmospheric pollution observed.
The information submitted to the Conseil d’État also showed that in 1997, the Prefect of Nord-Pas-de-Calais asked the operator for a report on diffuse emissions and that, in view of the results and a study by the École des Mines de Douai in 1999, he called for measures to limit diffuse emissions with a view to reducing lead emissions even further.
To rule that the State had been negligent in enforcing the legislation governing listed facilities, the Administrative Court of Appeal referred solely to the fact that the measures applied by successive prefects had not prevented soil pollution associated with the site’s activities since the early 20th century. The Conseil d’État ruled that in doing so, it did not demonstrate how the authorities, despite all the inspections and requirements described above and given the information that was available to them over the years, had failed to fulfil their obligation to supervise the facility.
On these grounds, the Conseil d’État overturned the decision of 23 May 2024.
Read the decision (in French)