In June 2013, the Land and Environment Court handed down a judgment in a case concerning parent company liability for environmental pollution caused by a  subsidiary, (Case No. M 11429-12). Initially, we give a brief description of the term operator followed by an account of the judgment in question.

The term operator

In accordance with chapter 10 § 2 of the Environmental Code, the term “operator of a contaminated site” refers to anyone who operates or has operated a business or undertaken actions that have contributed to pollution. In certain situations, e.g. when several legal entities or natural persons have been involved, it can be difficult to assess which person should be regarded as the operator. The determining factor must then be who had the actual and legal resolution for the activities that contributed to the contamination.

Questions regarding the term operator are complex. Some guidance may however be found in the Seveso legislation (1999:381) regarding measures for the prevention and limitation of the consequences of serious chemical accidents. The legislation contains inter alia the following definition:

Operator: any natural or legal person who operates or owns a business or  facility, or in any other way holds the right to make key financial decisions for  the technical operation of the business or facility. If several businesses with a  common owner are co-located, they shall be regarded as a single operation  and the common owner as the operator.