Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo

Sommario

1. Considerazioni preliminari. – 2. Problemi giuridici connessi al risarcimento del danno da “bioinquinamento” nel settore agricolo attraverso il ricorso al regime ordinario di responsabilità civile. – 3. Mancanza di un intervento normativo da parte della Comunità europea e adozione di legislazioni in materia da parte degli Stati membri. – 3.1. Il modello danese. – 3.2. Il modello tedesco e quello austriaco. – 3.3. Il modello italiano (legge n. 22 del 28 gennaio 2005). – 4. Luci ed ombre dei modelli proposti. – 4.1. Verso l’assicurazione del rischio biotecnologico? – 5. Osservazioni conclusive.

Abstract

The spread of GM cultivations has given rise to a wide debate relating to the adequacy of national liability regimes to provide redress for damages caused by “biopollution”, i.e. the diffusion of transgenic reproductive material into the environment and neighbouring fields. In order to put an end to a situation of considerable uncertainty, in the last few years many Parliaments have considered the opportunity of legal reforms in this area, in particular to assure that organic and conventional farmers adversely affected by the unintended presence of GMOs may get a proper compensation for the economic losses incurred. This article deals with the legislation on GM crops liability recently adopted or proposed by European States and sub-national entities. In the absence of a common framework at EU level, significantly different solutions have been followed in relation to the channelling of civil liability, the basis upon which liability can be assessed and the establishment of compensation funds. The pros and cons of the various regimes are analysed, with particular attention to their socio-economic consequences.