The plaintiffs owned agricultural land and olive groves, according to the act of land ownership. The defendants, the company “sh.a.” and the company “T.A” sh.p.k, are joint-stock companies whose activity involves the performance of hydrocarbon operations. Damage has occurred to the olive trees due to uncontrolled gas emissions into the air, which have reduced the production yield. The plaintiffs request that the defendant be ordered to compensate for the damage caused by the failure of production on the olive grove property of each of the plaintiffs for the last three years.
The court of first instance reasons that for determining liability under Article 622 of the Civil Code, the causal link is decisive – meaning it must be proven that the damage was caused by the dangerous activity, and it does not matter what the conduct of the person who exercised the dangerous activity or used the dangerous items was. Furthermore, the rights of the plaintiffs over their olive grove property are specially protected by the Law on Land No. 7501, dated 19.07.1991, which in its Article 20 provides that any damage caused to orchards, olive groves, vineyards, and agricultural crops shall be compensated by the subject that caused the damage. From the judicial review, it was proven by the agronomy expert that the plaintiffs’ olive trees were damaged, and the main reason for the lack of production was the continuous emission of H₂S gas and the uninterrupted release into the atmosphere of other hydrocarbon components caused by oil extraction in this area.
The Vlora Court of Appeals decided to uphold the judicial decision of the Fier District Court.
The Court of Appeals considers correct the reasoning that the court of fact applied in resolving the dispute. In the case under review, the cumulative elements of the objective side of civil liability of the defendant, the company “T.A” sh.p.k, for the damage caused in the form of non-production and rehabilitation of the plaintiffs’ olive trees are fulfilled. The defendant filed a recourse.
The High Court, by decision dated 18.06.2025, decided to overturn the decision of the Vlora Court of Appeals and remand the case for retrial to the Court of Appeals of General Jurisdiction with a different judicial panel. The Chamber assesses that the Court of Appeals did not conduct a complete investigation regarding the cause of the damage claimed by the plaintiff – whether this alleged damage was caused directly by the amount of H₂S gas in the air exceeding the allowed limits, or whether it resulted from other components. Determining the cause of the damage requires specialized knowledge in the field, based on Article 224/a of the Civil Procedure Code, in this case an environmental expert. Although the expert appointed by the court explained the way the gas impacts the reduction of olive production, he did not – and could not – provide an accurate and conclusive assessment of whether the olive tree was damaged by amounts of H₂S gas in the air exceeding the allowed limits, or also by its presence within allowed levels.
In such circumstances, the Chamber considers that the courts have not conducted a full and extended investigation to properly resolve the dispute in accordance with Article 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. Both courts of fact accepted as given the conclusion of the sole agronomy expert regarding the existence of the damage and its causal link with the defendant’s activity, even though the expert himself stated he was not able to determine the cause and timing of the damage for the period 2011–2013.In this context, the Chamber concludes that the lower courts failed to guarantee a full, objective, and verifiable investigation in order to assess the causal link in a reliable and scientifically supported manner.
