Suez Group fined €50,000 for distributing contaminated water.
On Thursday 24 April, the criminal court in Beauvais ordered the (private water company) Suez Group to pay a fine of 50,000 euros for the contamination of water distributed to a village in the Oise département in 2019. The court reserved its decision until 12 June 2025.
The Suez group, which is being prosecuted by the criminal court in Beauvais for the contamination of water distributed to a village in the Oise department in 2019, could be fined €50,000. The water made hundreds of residents sick. The court reserved its decision until 12 June 2025.
More than 260 cases of gastroenteritis recorded
At the end of April 2019, wastewater was discharged into the drinking water network in the commune of Breuil-le-Sec following a human error. Over 260 cases of gastroenteritis were reported.
Suez was prosecuted for endangering others by failing to comply with a regulatory obligation and for distributing water whose quality standards posed a health risk without informing and advising consumers.
On 24 April 2019, an epidemic of gastroenteritis hit Breuil-le-Sec, with entire families suffering from vomiting and diarrhoea and children being hospitalised.
Samples taken by the ARS revealed the presence of bacteria in the drinking water. Laurent Isoré, director of the Suez Oise Nord Île-de-France branch since 2022, said the company initially suspected road works before identifying the source of the problem: a backflow preventer at the plant had not been replaced by a Suez agent.
‘An accumulation of faults on the part of the Suez group’
However, since a ministerial decree in 2015, backflow preventers, which prevent the two networks from mixing, must be automatic and not manual, as is still the case at this plant. The Communauté de Communes du Clermontois, the plaintiff, is criticising Suez for failing to inform it of the need to bring its plant into compliance ‘even though the public service delegation contract required it to do so’, said Francis Lindenfeld, the agglomeration’s lawyer.
The Suez group’s insurer has paid compensation to some residents, while others have joined the civil action. “They offered me and my daughter €400. Nothing for my husband, who had no supporting documents”, explains Justine, the mother of a 4-year-old girl at the time, whose whole family was ill. “Drinking water contaminated with industrial waste, and possibly faecal matter, is that worth €400?” she asked, noting that she found it difficult to drink tap water again.
The prosecutor pointed to “an accumulation of faults on the part of the Suez group”, citing ‘inadequate’ implementation in terms of regulations and information for the public and the community, and emphasising ‘a not inconsiderable social cost’. In his defence, François Saint-Pierre insisted that Suez had acted ‘to limit contamination as far as possible’, and that a company could not be held criminally liable for its employees.
