The State must compensate victims who have suffered moral damages from anxiety as a result of being exposed to chlordecone, a pesticide used in Guadeloupe and Martinique that has massively polluted soil and water, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday.
Seized by nearly 1,300 plaintiffs, the court ruled in a ruling that "the State committed errors in granting authorizations for the sale of chlordecone-based insecticides, in allowing their prolonged use, in failing to exercise due diligence in assessing the pollution linked to this use, in putting an end to it, in measuring the consequences and in informing the affected population."
Consequently, it "must repair, when it is demonstrated, the moral prejudice of anxiety of people permanently exposed to this pollution."
Chlordecone, a pesticide banned in France in 1990 but which continued to be authorized in banana plantations on the two islands by ministerial exemption until 1993, caused significant and lasting pollution of soils, groundwater and marine environments.
More than 90% of the adult population in Guadeloupe and Martinique is contaminated by chlordecone, according to Public Health France, and men have one of the highest incidence rates of prostate cancer in the world.
The Paris Administrative Court had already recognized, in 2022, the "culpable negligence" of the authorities, but had rejected the claims for compensation for anxiety damage, lacking sufficiently detailed evidence in its view.
The administrative court of appeal went further, considering that "for around ten people", the evidence provided (blood tests and environmental studies) made it possible to establish "effective exposure to pollution of the soil, water or the food chain" and a high risk of developing a serious pathology.
"In these cases alone, it orders the State to compensate for the anxiety damage resulting from the awareness of running a high risk of developing a serious pathology," said the court, which added that "the sole invocation of exposure to chlordecone" does not justify such damage.
Christophe Lèguevaques, a lawyer for the civil parties, welcomed a "victory" that "sets a precedent," but regretted the court's decision to only compensate around ten people out of the 1,286 plaintiffs.
"From this perspective, this decision is disappointing. By discriminating between men and women, adults and children, the Court is ignoring the proven effects of chlordecone on public health," he noted in a statement.
English 
French