Eau de Paris v. Bridge Energies and the Prefect of Seine-et-Marne

On July 5, 2022, Bridge Energies submitted an application to the Prefect of Seine-et-Marne for a prefectural permit to drill two new hydrocarbon exploration wells in Nonville, France. The application was submitted within the perimeter of an existing, 25-year mining title granted in 2009. Bridge Energies request was supplemented on November 22, 2022, and granted via an official decree on January 30, 2024, by the Prefect. Eau de Paris, the public entity that manages Paris’s drinking water supply, filed a complaint on March 29, 2024, seeking the annulment of the prefectural order and the relief of 3000 EUR from the State and Bridge Energies. The plaintiff specifically seeks relief under Article L. 761-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice. In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the authorization of the prefectural permit followed an impact study that “presents deficiencies regarding the project’s effects on water resources, or climate change, on reasonable alternatives, and on biodiversity.” The plaintiff contends that the project ignores Article L. 414-4 of the Environmental Code, as it fails to “assess impacts on Natura 2000 sites.” The plaintiff contends that the permit application fails to analyze compatibility with the “water-management master plan for the Seine basin and Norman coastal rivers”, causing a breach in Article 6 of Decree No. 2006-649 of June 2, 2006. The plaintiff argues that “the order suffers from a procedural defect”, considering the inquiry commissioner failed to issue “reasoned, impartial, and objective findings.” The plaintiff also alleges that the project violates Article L. 161-1 of the Mining Code because it poses significant risks for water resources and natural habitats and that the project “contravenes the local urban-planning code of the commune of Nonville.” The case proceeded before the Tribunal Administratif de Melun, which issued its judgment on January 30, 2025. The court found that the prefectural authorization contained multiple legal defects, specifically in its inadequate evaluation of biodiversity and resource impacts and its insufficient pollution prevention measures. The court did not fully annul the permit, instead issuing a sursis à statuer (suspension of judgment). This suspension grants the State and Bridge Energies a ten-month period to mend the identified deficiencies. The court stated that it will issue a final decision at the end of this period.