Pour ce qui est des suites de l’accident de janvier 2000, la Cour observe qu’il ressort des éléments du dossier que l’activité industrielle en question n’a pas été arrêtée par les autorités, qui ont continué à utiliser la même technologie (voir le paragraphe 8 ci-dessus, in fine). En ce sens, la Cour rappelle l’importance du principe de précaution (consacré pour la première fois par la Déclaration de Rio), qui a vocation à s’appliquer en vue d’assurer un niveau de protection élevée de la santé, de la sécurité des consommateurs et de l’environnement, dans l’ensemble des activités de la Communauté ».

Notwithstanding the above, the general obligation to ensure the rights to life and to personal integrity means that States must act diligently to prevent harm to these rights. Also, when interpreting the Convention, as requested in this case, the Court must always seek the “best perspective” for the protection of the individual. Therefore, the Court understands that States must act in keeping with the precautionary principle in order to protect the rights to life and to personal integrity in cases where there are plausible indications that an activity could result in severe and irreversible damage to the environment, even in the absence of scientific certainty. Consequently, States must act with due caution to prevent possible damage. Thus, in the context of the protection of the rights to life and to personal integrity, the Court considers that States must act in keeping with the precautionary principle. Therefore, even in the absence of scientific certainty, they must take “effective” measures to prevent severe or irreversible damage.

QUESTIONS:-

1. Do we need the precautionary principle if we have environmental impact assessment?

2. Is the precautionary principle an efficient tool in the protection of the environment?

3. What is the legal status of the precautionary principle?