On the Boliden Mineral AB breathe it out.
– It is with the double reaction we have received the judgment. We are of course gratified to have won. But both we and the counterparty have put great efforts on goal during the five years and it would have been desirable, even if the other issues had been examined, ” says Klas Nilsson, head of communications at Boliden AB
he’s referring to is that the trial covered the years of preparation and around 40 days in the two bodies. Both sides have gone down in the level of detail in a long series of questions. It has moved on the wind conditions, how harmful the arsenic actually is and how to tackle the fact that there were other companies of sewage sludge on the same field in which Boliden divested the sludge ended up.
“I had been looking forward to take part of how the appellate court looks at all these issues,” says Nilsson.
The ruling is that the court of appeal, applying Swedish law to the contrary, the district court did, chose chile.
Thus the objective of a limitation period of ten years from the damage is done.
But the question is when it is done.
surrounding the event, and notes that it does not occur at a given point in time, but that it is a lengthy process. Skadehändelsen is any time from before the sale, that was in 1984, to the most generous interpretation that is 1999.
But the year doesn’t matter.
– Because a claim for damages under Swedish law become statute-barred after ten years is Arica Victims demands simply too old, says hovrättspresident Erik Sundström.
of arsenikhaltigt tailings in the 80’s and the consequences it brought about.
Boliden sold the tailings to a chilean company for reprocessing. But the waste, rich in, among other things, arsenic, was lying on a heap on the outskirts of the city of Arica in many years.
finally it was in the children’s playground.
much later exhibit widespread illness, injury and premature death among these people.
against Boliden have in common that they have shown high values of arsenic in urine samples. These required Boliden 102 million for their injuries.
Johan Öberg is one of two attorneys who represented Arica Victims.
” I am extremely disappointed and very surprised. The court of appeal make it easy for themselves and cut off us already on the form. They test not even issues if Boliden has been responsible, ” says Öberg.
He explains that he had hoped for a judgment, where Boliden’s behaviour compared with the company’s claim that it is a modern company that works with sustainability and social issues.
By this he can find nothing in the judgment.
“I can also say that several of the 796 people we represent were not even born when the limitation period for them went out,” says Öberg.