《欧盟法》 课 程 论 文

(2022-2023 学年第 二 学期)

The Polluter-Pays Principle in the European Union Law

学生姓名： 潘蕾

提交日期： 2023 年 4 月 27 日 学生签名： 潘蕾

学 号 202030630268 座位编号
法学院（知识产权学
学 院 专业班级 法学一班
院）
课程名称 欧盟法 任课教师 邹东俊
教师评语：
本论文成绩评定： 分
 The Polluter-Pays Principle in the European Union Law
潘蕾
Abstract: The Polluter Pays Principle is one of the key principles underlying the European
Union’s (EU) environmental policy, which means the polluters shall bear the costs of their
pollution. This essay focus on three aspects of the Polluter-Pays Principle: its legal status,
meaning and function, as well as the challenges it faces and its application by the European
Court of Justice (ECJ).
Keywords: ××；××；…

1. The legal status of the Polluter-Pays Principle in EU law

The Polluter-Pays Principle was first introduced by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1972 as a guiding principle applying to European
economic and environment development policy.1 污染者付费原则最早是由欧洲经济发展与
组织委员会（OECD）于 1972 年提出，并作为一项指导性原则适用于欧洲经济环境发
展政策的。
In international law, the Polluter-Pays Principle has never been recognized as a general
principle of international law.2As the tribunal noted in the 2004 Rhine Chlorides Arbitration
Case, although the principle “features in several international instruments, bilateral as well as
multilateral, and that it operates at various levels of effectiveness. Without denying its
importance in treaty law, the Tribunal does not view this principle as being a part of general
international law.”3 The international community has not formed a consistent understanding
about the meaning and status of the Polluter-Pays Principle.
For example, Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration states that, “the polluter should, in
principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without
distorting international trade and investment.” 4 However, the requirement for polluter which
this declaration sets out is merely a recommendation rather than a binding obligation, because
this declaration is only a non-binding short document produced at the 1992 United Nations
“Conference on Environment and Development”. In OECD, the Polluter-Pays Principle has
constituted a fundamental principle and can be deemed as a region custom. Under the 1972
and 1974 OECD Recommendations (1)(2), the Polluter-Pays Principle means that the polluter

1
OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Guiding Principles concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental
Policies, 2020.
2
Philippe Sands and Jacqueline Peel，Principles of International Environmental Law ( Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press，4th ed. ，2012) ，at p. 240
3
Netherlands v. France，Award，ICGI 374 ( PCA 2004) ，12 March 2004，Permanent Court of Arbitration, paras. 102-103.
4
Rio Declaration https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/
A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf

1
should bear the “costs of pollution prevention and control measures”, the latter being
“measures decided by public authorities to ensure that the environment is in an acceptable
state”. In other words, the polluter has to bear the cost of steps that he is legally bound to take
to protect the environment, such as measures to reduce the pollutant emissions at source and
measures to avoid pollution by collective treatment of effluent from a polluting installation
and other sources of pollution. 在国际法层面， PPP 从未被公认为一项“一般法律原
则”或“国际惯例”。正如仲裁庭在莱茵河氯化物(Rhine Chlorides)案中所评述的，尽
管该原则在许多双边和多边法律文件中得到重要的体现，它“在不同的效力层次上起
着作用”，但是当前它并不属于“一般国际法”的一部分。国际社会对 PPP 的内涵和
法律地位暂未形成统一的认识。例如，《里约宣言》的原则 16 中提出，由于里约宣言
仅是在 1992 年联合国“环境与发展会议”（UNCED）（非正式地称为地球峰会）上
产生的一份简短文件，该宣言对污染者提出的要求仅仅是一项建议而非具有法律约束
力的强制性义务。在经合组织中，"谁污染谁付费 "原则已构成一项基本原则，并可被
视为一种区域惯例。根据 1972 年和 1974 年的经合组织建议（1）（2），污染者付费
原则意味着污染者应承担 "污染预防和控制措施的费用"，后者是 "公共当局决定的确
保环境处于可接受状态的措施"。换句话说，污染者必须承担他在法律上有义务采取的
保护环境的措施的费用，如从源头上减少污染物排放的措施和通过集体处理污染设施
的污水和其他污染源来避免污染的措施。
But in EU law, the Polluter-Pays Principle enjoys a very important legal status and is
explicitly recognized as a constitutional principle in EU environmental policy and a
cornerstone of the EU environmental liability regime. The European Community (now
European Union) was an early adopter of the Polluter-Pays Principle: in 1973 with its
Program of action on the environment and in 1975 with its Recommendation 75/436,
regarding cost allocation and action by public authorities on environmental matters.
Nowadays, the polluter pays principle is enshrined in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)5 and the Environmental Liability Directive
2004/35/EC (ELD), which entered into force on April 30, 2004. According to the Directive,
member states were given three years to transpose it into national law, and by July 2010, all
member states had done so. 但在欧盟法律中，"谁污染谁付费 "原则享有非常重要的法律
地位，并被明确认定为欧盟环境政策中的宪法原则和欧盟环境责任制度的基石。欧洲
共同体（现在的欧洲联盟）是污染者付费原则的早期采用者：1973 年制定了环境行动
纲领，1975 年制定了关于公共当局在环境问题上的成本分配和行动的第 75/436 号建议。
如今，"谁污染谁付费 "原则已被写入《欧洲联盟运作条约》（TFEU）第 191 条第 2 款
和 2004 年 4 月 30 日生效的关于环境损害责任的第 2004/35/EC 号指令。根据该指令，
5
ex Article 174(2) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (EEC)

2
成员国有三年时间将其转化为国家法律，到 2010 年 7 月，所有成员国都已这样做。
The Polluter-Pays Principle was initially a principle of EU economic policy, aiming to
oblige polluters to prevent or take control measures against pollution caused by their
economic actions. As environmental problem continued to evolve, the Polluter-Pays Principle
has developed over the years from a “marginal” principle to a fundamental principle that
imposes obligations on polluters and has had a significant impact on EU legislation. The
Polluter-Pays Principle applies not only to pollution prevention and control, but also to other
environmental costs or management aspects, such as affordability, green energy taxation, and
with respect to non-compliance with the licensing system, among others.污染者付费原则起
初是欧盟经济政策的一项原则，是为了要求污染者对其经济行为所造成的污染行为进
行防止或采取控制措施。随着环境问题的不断演变，污染者付费原则经过多年观点的
变化从一个“边缘化”的原则转变为完全规定污染者义务的基本原则，并且已经在欧
盟的立法中产生了重要的影响。PPP 不仅仅适用于污染预防和污染控制，也适用与其
他环境费用或管理方面，如支付能力、绿色能源税收和关于不遵守许可证制度等等方
面。

2. The meaning and function of the Polluter-Pays Principle in EU law

2.1 Meaning
Article 191 of the TFEU provides that: “Union policy on the environment shall aim at a
high level of protection, taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions
of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that
preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified
at source and that the polluter should pay.”
It is evident that the legislators of the TFEU did not define the Polluter-Pays Principle,
which in part contributes to the difficulty and lack of consistency in its application. However,
it is argued that the lack of definition could be justified “on the grounds that the
implementation of this principle across a wide range of policies is rather contextual.” 6
2.2 Function
Above all, the Polluter-Pays Principle has an important role to play in furthering
environment law at the international, EC and national levels for it answers to an economic
logic.
总的来说，PPP 在促进国际、欧共体和国家层面的环境法方面发挥着重要作用因为
该原则符合经济逻辑。

6
de Sadeleer, Nicolas. The Polluter-Pays Principle in EU Law - Bold Case Law and Poor Harmonisation. In: Pro Natura.
Festskrift til H.-C. Bugge, Universitetsforlaget: Oslo 2012, p. 405-419 http:// hdl.handle.net/2078.3/143143

3
 By applying the principle, polluters are incentivized to avoid environmental damage and
are held responsible for the pollution they cause. That is, it is the polluter, not the taxpayer,
who bears the costs caused by pollution. From an economic point of view, this constitutes an
“internalization” of the “negative environmental externality”. That is, when the costs of
pollution are borne by polluters, the prices of goods and services increase to include these
costs, at which point consumer preferences for lower prices will be an incentive for producers
to sell less polluting products.7
通过应用它，污染者被激励去避免环境破坏，并对他们造成的污染负责。即由污染
者，而不是纳税人，来承担污染造成的成本。从经济角度看，这构成了 "负面环境外
部性 "的 "内部化"。简单来说，当污染的成本由污染者承担，商品和服务的价格就会
增加，以包括这些成本。因此，消费者对低价格的偏好将激励生产者销售污染较少的
产品。
It can be seen that, according to this principle, part of the profits made by polluters as a
result of their activities must be returned to the public authorities responsible for inspecting,
monitoring and controlling the pollution generated by these activities. Thus, the main function
of the Polluter-Pays Principle is to internalize the social costs borne by the public authorities
for the prevention and control of pollution. By creating a system of fees, polluters help and
finance public policies to protect the environment.
可见，根据该规则，污染者因其活动而获得的部分利润必须返还给负责检查、监测
和控制这些活动产生的污染的公共当局。因此，PPP 的主要功能是将公共当局为预防
和控制污染所承担的社会成本内部化。通过建立一个收费系统，让污染者帮助、资助
保护环境的公共政策。

3. Challenges to the Polluter-Pays Principle and its Application in the

European Court of Justice
As a constitutional principle of the EU environmental law, the Polluter-Pays
Principle is still facing some challenges and needs to be continuously clarified.
3.1 Undefined and unclear key concepts and definitions
The ELD defines three types of environmental damage that fall within its scope, i.e. to
protected species and natural habitats, water, and land. 8 The Directive applies when such
“environmental damage” is considered “significant”. However, the Directive does not specify
criteria for assessing damage or determining the significance threshold for damage.
The European Commission’s 2016 evaluation suggested that the absence of clarity and

7
Jans, Jan H. and Vedder, Hans H. B., European Environmental Law, 2008.
8
Article 2 of Directive 2004/35/EC.

4
uniform application of key concepts of the ELD (“environmental damage” and “significance”)
had hampered the Directive’s objective of achieving a high level of environmental protection
in the EU.9 At the same time, the European Parliament stated in 2017 that “the different
interpretations and application of the ‘significance threshold’ for environmental damage are
one of the main barriers to an effective and uniform application of the ELD”.
This is reflected in the fact that the interpretation of what constitutes “significant
environmental damage” and is therefore subject to the Polluter-Pays Principle under the
Directive varies considerably from Member State to Member State. An event that triggers the
application of ELD in one Member State may not trigger it in another. In the specific context
of the definition of what constitutes “land damage”, ELD refers only to damage that poses a
significant risk to human health, but not the environment.
The European Parliament has therefore called on the Commission to revise the definition
of “environmental damage” and to clarify the concept of “significance threshold”. In 2019, an
amendment to the ELD10 requested the Commission to develop guidelines on the term
“environmental damage” by the end of 2020. Following consultations with member states, the
Commission issued a notification in March 2021 11 on its legal interpretation of the definition
of "environmental damage". However, this interpretation is not binding and does not contain
specific criteria or thresholds for the application of compensation for environmental damage,
which still requires legislative changes.
《环境法》界定了属于其范围的三种环境损害，即对受保护物种和自然栖息地、水
和土地的损害。当这种 "环境损害 "被认为是 "重大的 "时，该指令就适用。然而，该
指令没有规定评估损害的标准，也没有确定损害的重要性阈值。
欧盟委员会 2016 年的评估表明，由于 ELD 的关键概念（"环境损害 "和 "重要
性"）缺乏明确性和统一应用，阻碍了该指令在欧盟实现高水平环境保护的目标。同时，
欧洲议会在 2017 年表示，"对环境损害的'重要性阈值'的不同解释和应用是有效和统一
应用环境法的主要障碍之一 "并呼吁委员会修改 "环境损害 "的定义，并澄清 "重要性
阈值 "的概念。
这具体体现在，对于什么是重大环境损害并因此受制于指令下的 PPP 的解释，各
成员国之间有很大差异。在一个成员国触发适用 ELD 的事件，在另一个成员国可能不
会触发它。在构成 "土地损害 "的定义的具体情况下，ELD 仅指对人类健康造成重大
风险的损害，而不是环境。
因此，欧洲议会呼吁委员会修改 "环境损害 "的定义，并澄清 "重要性阈值 "的概
念。 2019 年，《环境法》的一项修正案要求委员会在 2020 年底前制定关于 "环境损
9
SWD/2016/0121 final, p. 60.
10
Regulation (EU) 2019/1010.
11
Commission Notice 2021/C 118/01

5
害 "一词的指导方针。在与成员国协商后，委员会于 202146 年 3 月发布了一份关于其
对 "环境损害 "定义的法律解释的通知。但是委员会的解释不具有约束力，也不包含
适用环境损害赔偿的具体标准或门槛，这仍需立法修改。
3.2 Difficult to Define Polluters and Scope of Pollution Charge.
Pricing instrument including environmental tax is an important tool for delivering the
Polluter-Pays Principle. The European Commission recalls that whilst it makes efforts to
apply the Polluter-Pays Principle in environmental policy, one of the main instruments to
achieve this, namely taxes, is usually subject to unanimity in co-decision. Therefore, the full
application requires the engagement of Member States.
In fact, as regard taxation, the Polluter-Pays Principle throws up more questions than it
solves.
包括环境税在内的定价工具是实现 PPP 的一个重要工具。委员会回顾说，虽然它
努力在环境政策中应用 PPP，但实现这一目标的主要工具之一，即税收，通常要在共
同决定中取得一致意见。因此，全面应用需要成员国的参与。
实际上在税收方面，"谁污染谁付费 "原则带来的问题比它解决的问题更多。
3.2.1 Who should pay the pollution charges？
Identifying the person who must pay pollution charges has given rise to a great deal of
controversy, since generally more than one identifiable individual contributes to pollution.
May the authority charge each person who has contributed to the harm, no matter how small
their share, on the grounds of equity? Or, for the sake of efficiency, is it preferable to charge
the person who is best placed to pay? The ECJ’s Pontina Ambiente Case may provide an
answer.
With respect to the scope of Article 10 of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste,
the Court held that all the operating costs of operating a landfill must be borne by the holders
of the waste deposited in the site for disposal “whatever the national rules may be governing
landfill sites, they must ensure that that all the operating costs of such a site is actually borne
by the holders of the waste deposited in the landfill for disposal.”12
Thus, although a Member State can introduce a levy on waste to be paid by the landfill
operator and reimbursed to the latter by the authorities depositing waste in the landfill, it can
do so only on condition that the fiscal provision in question is accompanied by measures to
ensure that the levy is actually reimbursed by the holders of the waste “within a short time so
as not to impose excessive operating costs on the operator on account of late payment”. 13
These wastes are not generated by the operator of the landfill, who merely disposes of them

12
Pontina Ambiente v Regione Lazio (Environment And Consumers); 25 Feb 2010, C-172/08, [2010] EUECJ C-172/08 para. 37
13
同上,38 段

6
within the scope of his activities as a service provider. To require the operator to bear such
costs would undoubtedly be a weakening of the Polluter-Pays Principle.
确定必须支付污染费的人引起了很大的争议，因为通常不止一个可识别的个人造成
了污染。出于公平的考虑，当局是否可以向每个造成危害的人收取费用，无论他们的
份额有多小？或者，为了效率起见，最好是向最有能力支付的人收费？欧洲法院的
Pontina Ambiente 案可能提供了一个答案。
关于 1999/31/EC 号指令中关于垃圾填埋场的第 10 条的范围，法院认为，填埋场的
所有运营成本必须由存放在填埋场的垃圾持有者承担，"无论国家对填埋场的规定是什
么，都必须确保这种填埋场的所有运营成本实际上是由存放在填埋场的垃圾持有者承
担的"。
因此，尽管成员国可以对废物征收税款，由填埋场经营者支付，并由将废物存入填
埋场的当局偿还给后者，但它只能这样做，条件是有关的财政规定附有措施，确保征
收的税款 "在短时间内由废物持有人实际偿还，以避免因延迟付款而给经营者带来过
多的经营成本"。 这些废物不是由填埋场的经营者产生的，他只是在其作为服务提供
者的活动范围内对这些废物进行处置。要求经营者承担这种费用，无疑是对 "污染者
付费原则 "的削弱。
3.2.2 How much must the polluter be charged？
According to the principle of proportionality, polluters must pay in proportion to the
damage they cause. As a result, activities that are the most harmful to the environment should
pay the highest charges.
Standley Case is a textbook example of the fact that the Polluter-Pays Principle is the
expression of a general principle of EU law, the principle of proportionality. With regard to
charges related to the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources, which were exclusively paid by farmers, the Court was asked to rule on
whether the Nitrates Directive infringes the Polluter-Pays Principle laid down in Treaty law,
on the grounds that farmers were being singled out to bear the cost of reducing the
concentration of nitrates in waters to below the threshold of 50 mg/l even though agriculture
is acknowledged to be only one source of nitrates, while no financial demands were being
made upon other sources. Referring to the Polluter-Pays Principle, the ECJ judged that: “As
regards the polluter pays principle, … the Directive does not mean that farmers must take on
burdens for the elimination of pollution to which they have not contributed.” 14 “the Member
States are to take account of the other sources of pollution when implementing the Directive
and, … are not to impose on farmers costs of eliminating pollution that are unnecessary.
Viewed in that light, the polluter pays principle reflects the principle of proportionality.”
14
para. 51

7
 According to this case law, Member States cannot impose on farmers costs of eliminating
pollution that are ‘unnecessary’: they must also take into account other sources of pollution.
Following that reasoning, the costs charged to certain categories of economic agents as a
result of the designation of a protected area should not be higher than the cost of the pollution
generated by those agents. Thus, if the polluter is an industrial plant located upstream, then
charging only farmers downstream would be contrary to that principle. This clearly
demonstrates how the principles set out in the TFEU can influence the interpretation of
secondary legislative acts and thus determine State administrative practice.
根据比例原则，污染者必须按其造成的损害比例付费。因此，对环境危害最大的活
动应支付最高的费用。
Standley 案是一个教科书式的例子，说明污染者付费原则是欧盟法律的一般原则，
即比例原则的体现。关于与保护水域免受农业来源的硝酸盐污染有关的费用，这些费
用完全由农民支付，法院被要求裁定《硝酸盐指令》是否违反了条约法规定的 "谁污
染谁付费 "原则，理由是尽管农业被认为只是硝酸盐的一个来源，而对其他来源却没
有提出财政要求，但农民却被单独挑出来承担将水域中硝酸盐浓度降至 50 毫克/升以下
的费用。提到 "污染者付费原则"，欧洲法院的判断是 "关于污染者付费原则，......该指
令并不意味着农民必须为消除他们没有贡献的污染而承担负担。" "成员国在执行该指
令时应考虑到其他污染源，......不应强加给农民消除污染的不必要的费用。从这个角度
来看，污染者付费原则反映了比例原则"。
根据这一判例法，成员国不能向农民征收 "不必要 "的消除污染的费用：他们还必
须考虑到其他污染源。根据这一推理，因指定保护区而向某些类别的经济主体收取的
费用不应高于这些主体产生的污染的成本。因此，如果污染者是位于上游的工业工厂，
那么只向下游的农民收费就违背了这一原则。这清楚地表明了《欧盟条约》中规定的
原则如何影响对二级立法行为的解释，从而决定国家行政实践。
3.2.3 Allocation of charge revenues
Allocating the revenue from charges also gives rise to a number of questions, because
neither the EU directives nor recommendations indicate whether the sums collected should be
set aside in a special fund for financing environmental policy or if they should be paid into the
general State budget.
The redistributive function of taxing tends to in favour of the first option. Since a
financial transfer from polluters to the public authorities is intended to spare the community
from having to assume environmental liability, the proceeds of charges should primarily be
allocated to the tasks of pollution prevention, control, monitoring and clean-up carried out by
public authorities. In the case where charge revenue exceeds total expenditure,

8
Recommendation 75/432 says that “the surplus should preferably be used by each government
for its national environmental policies.” Though it is a wise recommendation, allocating
charge revenues to a dedicated fund does not conform to the principle of universality,
according to which tax revenues should not be used for specific expenditure.
收费收入的分配也引起了一些问题，因为欧盟的指令和建议都没有指出所收的款项
是否应该留作资助环境政策的特别基金，或者是否应该支付给国家总预算。
税收的再分配功能倾向于第一种选择。由于从污染者到公共当局的财政转移是为了
使社会不必承担环境责任，收费的收益应主要分配给公共当局执行的污染预防、控制、
监测和清理任务。在收费收入超过总支出的情况下，第 75/432 号建议说，"盈余最好由
每个政府用于其国家环境政策"。虽然这是一个明智的建议，但将收费收入分配给一个
专门的基金并不符合普遍性原则，根据该原则，税收收入不应用于特定的支出。

4. Conclusion
The European Community has been committed to the Polluter-Pays Principle since 1987.
Even during the early stages of the evolution of the EU, the participating authorities were
already beginning to enact numerous initiatives for the protection of the environment. As the
European Union has become recognized as one of the world’s most progressive regions in
terms of environmental protection policies, and where “Polluter-Pays” law enforcement is the
most effective and rigorous, the European law on the Polluter-Pays Principle is thus
considered the optimal model for other countries to emulate when seeking to contribute to
globalization’s most influential environmental protection initiatives.
自 1987 年以来，欧洲共同体一直致力于 "污染者付费 "原则。即使在欧盟发展的
早期阶段，参与当局已经开始颁布许多保护环境的倡议。由于欧盟已被公认为是世界
上环境保护政策最进步的地区之一，而且 "谁污染谁付费 "的法律执行最为有效和严
格，因此，欧洲关于 PPP 的法律被认为是其他国家在寻求对全球化最具影响力的环境
保护倡议作出贡献时可以效仿的最佳模式。
Nonetheless, a basic ambiguity remains in the Polluter-Pays Principle of EU law. On the
one hand, when the marginal cost of pollution abatement exceeds the pollution charges
avoided, the principle may give polluters the right to buy pollution with a currency equivalent
to the cost of the environment. On the other hand, despite the simplicity of its meaning, the
contours of the principle remain elusive at the legal level. The polluter is very difficult to
identify, since any act of pollution is an act of production. Moreover, the causal link and the
scope of damages are difficult to define due to the diffuse nature of pollution and the
unpredictability of damage.

9
 尽管如此，欧盟法的"谁污染谁付费 "原则中仍然存在一个基本的模糊性。一方面，
当减少污染的边际成本超过所避免的污染费用时，该原则可能给予污染者权利，以相
当于环境成本的货币购买污染。另一方面，尽管该原则的意思很简单，但在法律层面
上，该原则的轮廓仍然令人捉摸不透。污染者很那被确定，因为任何污染行为都是生
产行为。而且，由于污染的分散性和损害的不可预知性，污染和损害之间的因果关系
和损害赔偿的范围也难以界定。
Therefore, it is up to the development of legal doctrine and judicial practice to
progressively clarify the definition and scope of the Polluter-Pays Principle, as well as to
propose changes to the traditional positive solutions in its light.

因此，有待法律理论来逐步解读新的判例法发展，目的是画龙点睛，澄清该原则的定
义和范围，并根据该原则对传统的积极解决方案提出修改。
正文部分（标题行用小四号字加粗，正文内容用小四号字）

References
[1]ThePolluterPaysPrincipleintheEuropeanUnionLawandinVietnam-
SelectedIssues,byTranCongThiet,UniversityofWarsaw.https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-polluter-
pays-principle-in-the-european-union-law-and-in-vietnamselected-issues-11477.html
[2]https://www.era-comm.eu/Introduction_EU_Environmental_Law/EN/module_2/module_2_11.html

10