Successful representation of environmental organizations and local residents in a dispute over logging permits in a settlement park
Case
RASK attorney-at-law Villy Lopman and attorney Sandra Kaas represented the clients in a dispute over whether and under what conditions the Environmental Board can issue forest notices for the cutting of a park located in a densely populated area. More specifically, the question under dispute was whether the Environmental Board had sufficiently taken into account the restrictions arising from the plans when issuing the permit for felling in the park within the settlement and properly included the affected persons in the procedure. The international environmental organization PFPI (Partnership for Policy Integrity) has considered this dispute important due to its broader environmental protection meaning.
The district court partially satisfied the complaint and recognized the forest notices issued in the park of the settlement as illegal in that they did not include environmental organizations and local residents in the registration process. In a situation where the Environmental Board is aware of a person's wish to be included in the proceedings during the registration of forest notifications (for example, through a previous legal dispute regarding the permission to cut on the same land), the Environmental Board must include the person in the decision on the permission to cut. The court explained that not involving persons after the Environmental Board is aware of their interest in the forest notification procedure is contrary to the principle of good administration. Thus, the forest notices were illegal.
This dispute is also notable for the fact that during the court proceedings, the forest notices under dispute lost their validity and the Environmental Board issued new forest notices with identical content to the logging operator, on the basis of which the felling was done during the court proceedings. Thus, the court was no longer able to cancel forest notifications that were initially under dispute, i.e. it became impossible to achieve the original goal of the applicants' complaint. In the appeal stage, RASK requested to change the complaint and supplement the complaint with new requirements for new forest notifications, based on which the felling was done. The court allowed to amend the complaint and also included in the dispute the new forest notifications, on the basis of which the felling was carried out. Even though, in the case of contesting forest notices, the courts have also previously allowed to switch to the requirement of establishing the illegality of forest notices, this is rather exceptional at the appeal level. And this is especially so in a situation where forest notices have already been implemented regarding the felling of trees. Amending the complaint helped clients avoid a new and costly litigation between the same parties and ensured effective legal protection.
The district court partially satisfied the complaint and recognized the forest notices issued in the park of the settlement as illegal in that they did not include environmental organizations and local residents in the registration process. In a situation where the Environmental Board is aware of a person's wish to be included in the proceedings during the registration of forest notifications (for example, through a previous legal dispute regarding the permission to cut on the same land), the Environmental Board must include the person in the decision on the permission to cut. The court explained that not involving persons after the Environmental Board is aware of their interest in the forest notification procedure is contrary to the principle of good administration. Thus, the forest notices were illegal.
This dispute is also notable for the fact that during the court proceedings, the forest notices under dispute lost their validity and the Environmental Board issued new forest notices with identical content to the logging operator, on the basis of which the felling was done during the court proceedings. Thus, the court was no longer able to cancel forest notifications that were initially under dispute, i.e. it became impossible to achieve the original goal of the applicants' complaint. In the appeal stage, RASK requested to change the complaint and supplement the complaint with new requirements for new forest notifications, based on which the felling was done. The court allowed to amend the complaint and also included in the dispute the new forest notifications, on the basis of which the felling was carried out. Even though, in the case of contesting forest notices, the courts have also previously allowed to switch to the requirement of establishing the illegality of forest notices, this is rather exceptional at the appeal level. And this is especially so in a situation where forest notices have already been implemented regarding the felling of trees. Amending the complaint helped clients avoid a new and costly litigation between the same parties and ensured effective legal protection.