Presumptions of Law Concerning Causality in Environmental Cases: Towards Collective Presumptions of Fact?

Abstract

Abstract Presumptions of law are an appealing concept to remedy situations of causal uncertainty. In many pieces of EU legislation in various areas such as competition law, AI law and environmental law, presumptions are presented as a solution for plaintiffs that encounter problems regarding causal uncertainty in their compensation claims. Oftentimes, however, insufficient attention is paid to the possible risks of over- and under-compensation, the available alternatives and the functionality of these presumptions. In this article, I argue that a presumption of law fulfils two functions. First, this paper aims to address situations of evidentiary deficiency (individual goal). Second, it aims to facilitate the procedural road to compensation in cases of mass harm (collective goal). A comparative analysis of Belgian, Dutch and French law reveals that there are many ways to shape a presumption and its consequences. In conclusion, I argue that presumptions should always be tailored to a certain case and should attempt to reconcile the collective goal with the individual goal. To that end, policy-makers should aim to create collective presumptions of fact, based on the statistical evidence in a certain mass harm case, as opposed to presumptions of law.