Environmental pollution: the State responsible… unless?

Advance analysis of a Council of State ruling of July 24, 2025

 

Minister of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion v. Mr. and Mrs. C…, appeal no. 496331

Douai Administrative Court of Appeal – judgment no. 22DA00216 – March 20, 2024 

 

Environmental pollution: the State responsible… unless?

 

 

 

 

The Metaleurop affair or when the Council of State calms things down

Do you live near a former industrial site? Is your land polluted? You logically think that the State should protect you — and compensate you if it hasn't?

The Metaleurop case, recently judged by the Conseil d'État, sets the record straight: yes, the State can be held responsible… but not under just any conditions.
And above all: not without solid, targeted, almost surgical proof.

What this decision changes is the way to demonstrate the fault of the administration. And this is where our profession as lawyers takes on its full meaning.

Recall of the facts: an industrial site, polluted soil, helpless residents

The Metaleurop site, in Pas-de-Calais, long hosted a foundry and heavy metal processing activity. Result: lasting, widespread pollution, very harmful to nearby residents.

Faced with this situation, several residents decided to sue the State. Their argument?
The State, through its prefectural services, should have better supervised the operator. It should have anticipated, imposed more constraints, gone beyond mere minimum standards.

The Douai Administrative Court of Appeal rules in their favor:

“The State committed a fault likely to engage its liability by not requiring, through the prefectural orders governing the activity of this classified installation, a more significant reduction of atmospheric pollutants, concerning more discharge points, including diffuse pollution, even if it meant anticipating, if necessary, more broadly on national standards.”

It goes even further by considering that the State's obligations extend to neighboring lands, not just the industrial site:

"Such measures may, where applicable, concern land located beyond the strict perimeter of the installation in question, insofar as they present risks of nuisance to public health or public safety or the protection of the environment, directly related to the present or past activity of this installation."

The decision is strong: the State is ordered to compensate for the loss of property value and the disturbance of enjoyment for residents.

 

 

Plot twist: the Council of State annuls the conviction

But here it is: on July 24, 2025, the Conseil d’État annuls this decision. Not because it denies the pollution. Not even because it considers that the State acted perfectly.

No: because it considers that the proof of fault is not precise enough.

What the Council of State says is that the mere fact that pollution continued despite prefectural measures is not sufficient.

It is still necessary to prove, point by point, that the prescriptions were insufficient in light of the scientific knowledge of the time, and that the administration had the means to act otherwise — but did not do so.

The Council of State comments on its decision as follows:

"To find that the State had committed a fault in the implementation of the classified installations police, the administrative court of appeal only relied on the observation that the measures imposed by successive prefects had not prevented soil pollution linked to the site's activity since the beginning of the 20th century. The Council of State ruled that it did not demonstrate, in doing so, how the administration, despite all the controls and prescriptions described above and given the information it had over the years, had failed in its obligations in regulating the installation."

 

 

The State is not untouchable, but the burden of proof is high

The position of the Council of State is clear: the State's liability in environmental matters is not automatic. It rests on two pillars:

1. The State must, beforehand, adopt sufficient requirements to regulate industrial activity.
2. And downstream, ensure real and continuous control of compliance with these requirements.

This is what the Council of State recalls by citing Article L.511-1 of the Environmental Code:

“It is the responsibility of the State, in the exercise of its police powers regarding classified installations, to ensure the protection of the interests mentioned in Article L. 511-1 […], by attaching appropriate prescriptions to the operating permit, and by ensuring their compliance.”

In other words: the duty of supervision exists, but proof of a breach must be rigorous, circumstantial, and contextualized.

 

Why seek support? Because you have a real fight to fight

The Metaleurop case shows one thing: environmental law is a law of struggle.
You will not win your case by merely presenting the pollution or your damage. You must demonstrate:

• what the State should have done,
• what he did not do,
• and that this directly led to the damage you are suffering.

And that's our job.

 

 

Our firm by your side

At Macfarlanes LLP, we don't just listen to your situation.
We dissect it, document it, anchor it in the texts, case law, and technical expertise.
We help you build a solid case, quantify your damages, target the exact faults of the administration, and assert your rights with the appropriate strategy.

Make an appointment at one of our offices in Paris, Bordeaux, Libourne, Rouen, Cannes or Toulouse — or by video, according to your preferences.

If you live near a polluted site, do not wait for your situation to worsen. Contact us: a simple conversation can change everything.

 

Article written by Me WAUTIER and Me SOULIÉ-JULIEN.