This paper aims at revealing the essential differences of transposition of the Directive 2004/35/EB into national law of member states, relating to the provisions on the scope and extent of implementation of the Directive, the main causes for that and possible influence upon achieving the objective of the Directive – establishing a common framework for the prevention and remedying environmental damage in the EU. To this end, the article gives an overview of the creation process of the Directive, analyzes the provisions of it, and legal regulation in Lithuania and some other member states, as well as legal doctrine on the matter.
This paper aims at revealing the essential differences of transposition of the Directive 2004/35/EB into national law of member states, relating to the provisions on the scope and extent of implementation of the Directive, the main causes for that and possible influence upon achieving the objective of the Directive – establishing a common framework for the prevention and remedying environmental damage in the EU. To this end, the article gives an overview of the creation process of the Directive, analyzes the provisions of it, and legal regulation in Lithuania and some other member states, as well as legal doctrine on the matter.
This paper aims at revealing the essential differences of transposition of the Directive 2004/35/EB into national law of member states, relating to the provisions on the scope and extent of implementation of the Directive, the main causes for that and possible influence upon achieving the objective of the Directive – establishing a common framework for the prevention and remedying environmental damage in the EU. To this end, the article gives an overview of the creation process of the Directive, analyzes the provisions of it, and legal regulation in Lithuania and some other member states, as well as legal doctrine on the matter.
This paper aims at revealing the essential differences of transposition of the Directive 2004/35/EB into national law of member states, relating to the provisions on the scope and extent of implementation of the Directive, the main causes for that and possible influence upon achieving the objective of the Directive – establishing a common framework for the prevention and remedying environmental damage in the EU. To this end, the article gives an overview of the creation process of the Directive, analyzes the provisions of it, and legal regulation in Lithuania and some other member states, as well as legal doctrine on the matter.
Biodiversity is increasingly recognised as an inestimable element of our heritage. The protection of rare and endagered species and habitats was the purpose of the Natura 2000 ecological network, established by Directive 92/43/EEC. The network also embraces areas established under Directive 79/409/EEC. Article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC sets out provisions which govern the conservation and management of Natura 2000 sites, i. e. it determines the relationship between conservation and land use. That is why this article is often considered as one of the most important of all 24 articles of the Directive 92/43/EEC. Taking this into account, the author of this paper analyses the content of proactive, preventive and procedural requirements set out in the article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC, she also discusses the main problems of implementation of these requirement into Lithuanian legislation and the problems of applying these requirements in practice. The author emphasises the importance of the duty to ensure that national legislation intended to transpose article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC is clear and precise enough and gives examples from national legislation, which show, that this duty is not fulfilled properly.
Biodiversity is increasingly recognised as an inestimable element of our heritage. The protection of rare and endagered species and habitats was the purpose of the Natura 2000 ecological network, established by Directive 92/43/EEC. The network also embraces areas established under Directive 79/409/EEC. Article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC sets out provisions which govern the conservation and management of Natura 2000 sites, i. e. it determines the relationship between conservation and land use. That is why this article is often considered as one of the most important of all 24 articles of the Directive 92/43/EEC. Taking this into account, the author of this paper analyses the content of proactive, preventive and procedural requirements set out in the article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC, she also discusses the main problems of implementation of these requirement into Lithuanian legislation and the problems of applying these requirements in practice. The author emphasises the importance of the duty to ensure that national legislation intended to transpose article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC is clear and precise enough and gives examples from national legislation, which show, that this duty is not fulfilled properly.
Biodiversity is increasingly recognised as an inestimable element of our heritage. The protection of rare and endagered species and habitats was the purpose of the Natura 2000 ecological network, established by Directive 92/43/EEC. The network also embraces areas established under Directive 79/409/EEC. Article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC sets out provisions which govern the conservation and management of Natura 2000 sites, i. e. it determines the relationship between conservation and land use. That is why this article is often considered as one of the most important of all 24 articles of the Directive 92/43/EEC. Taking this into account, the author of this paper analyses the content of proactive, preventive and procedural requirements set out in the article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC, she also discusses the main problems of implementation of these requirement into Lithuanian legislation and the problems of applying these requirements in practice. The author emphasises the importance of the duty to ensure that national legislation intended to transpose article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC is clear and precise enough and gives examples from national legislation, which show, that this duty is not fulfilled properly.
Biodiversity is increasingly recognised as an inestimable element of our heritage. The protection of rare and endagered species and habitats was the purpose of the Natura 2000 ecological network, established by Directive 92/43/EEC. The network also embraces areas established under Directive 79/409/EEC. Article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC sets out provisions which govern the conservation and management of Natura 2000 sites, i. e. it determines the relationship between conservation and land use. That is why this article is often considered as one of the most important of all 24 articles of the Directive 92/43/EEC. Taking this into account, the author of this paper analyses the content of proactive, preventive and procedural requirements set out in the article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC, she also discusses the main problems of implementation of these requirement into Lithuanian legislation and the problems of applying these requirements in practice. The author emphasises the importance of the duty to ensure that national legislation intended to transpose article 6 of the Directive 92/43/EEC is clear and precise enough and gives examples from national legislation, which show, that this duty is not fulfilled properly.
Interim measures are procedural means that allow persons or States to have their rights preserved when a case is pending. Application of these measures especially in environmental cases is very important. In many of these cases (e.g. cases dealing with territorial planning, IPPC permits, environmental impact assessment, etc.) the claims deal with the protection of environment or its components (water, air, soil, etc.) as well as with the protection of public interest. Legal regulation of application of interim measures provided by Lithuanian Law on Administrative Proceedings is not optimal. That is why the first part of the article is dedicated to the analysis of the possibilities and problems of application of interim measures in the administrative proceedings in Lithuania, paying special attention to environmental cases. The second part of the article reflects the findings of a workshop of the Association of European Administrative Judges on "Interim relief in environmental matters" held in Vilnius on 22 September 2011. It briefly describes various national rules on interim relief procedures, especially in the German and the French legislation, with an assessment from the German point of view. This part of the article focuses on provisional legal protection where a permit is challenged by a third party whose rights are allegedly afflicted. In such a constellation the rights of the plaintiff compete with the rights of the operator. The article concludes that, when deciding on the necessity of interim measures, it is vital to ensure the balance of interests: both by ensuring effective access to justice and by protecting the respondent and the third party (in environmental cases - usually the operator) from the violation of their rights and the damage caused by the abuse of the right to request interim measures. In such cases short time limits for procedural steps both of the parties and the court are not advisable and a prima facie prognosis on the outcome in the main proceedings meets the interests of the parties. ; Reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonės (arba laikinosios apsaugos priemonės) yra procedūrinės priemonės, leidžiančios užtikrinti tinkamą asmenų ar valstybių teisių bei interesų apsaugą, dar neišnagrinėjus bylos iš esmės. Šių priemonių taikymas ypač reikšmingas bylose, susijusiose su aplinkos apsauga, nes daugelyje tokių bylų (pavyzdžiui, bylose, susijusiose su teritorijų planavimu, taršos integruotos prevencijos ir kontrolės leidimais, planuojamos ūkinės veiklos poveikio aplinkai vertinimu ir t. t.) paliečiami aplinkos ar atskirų jos komponentų (oro, vandens, dirvožemio, augalijos ir pan.) apsaugos klausimai, taip pat dažnai ginami viešieji interesai. Reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonių taikymo teisinis reguliavimas, įtvirtintas šiuo metu galiojančioje Lietuvos Respublikos administracinių bylų teisenos įstatymo redakcijoje, nėra optimalus. Būtent dėl to pirmoji straipsnio dalis skiriama reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonių taikymo Lietuvos administraciniame procese galimybių ir problemų analizei, didesnį dėmesį skiriant su aplinkos apsauga susijusioms byloms bei jų specifikai. Antroji straipsnio dalis skirta Europos administracinių teismų teisėjų asociacijos Aplinkos darbo grupės organizuoto teorinio-praktinios eminaro "Laikinosios apsaugos priemonės aplinkos apsaugos srityje" (įvykusio2011 m. rugsėjo 22 d.Vilniuje) rezultatams ir išvadoms atskleisti. Joje trumpai apžvelgiama nacionalinė įvairių valstybių praktika, taikant laikinąsias apsaugos priemones, daugiausia dėmesio skiriant Vokietijos ir Prancūzijos teisiniam reguliavimui. Straipsnyje atlikto tyrimo pagrindu galima daryti išvadą, kad, sprendžiant būtinumo taikyti laikinąsias apsaugos priemones klausimą, ypač svarbu yra užtikrinti teisingą interesų pusiausvyrą: tiek garantuojant efektyvų teisės kreiptis į teismus įgyvendinimą, tiek užtikrinant, kad nebus pažeistos atsakovo ir trečiųjų asmenų teisės, kad laikinųjų apsaugos priemonių taikymas nesukels žalos, didesnės negu ta, kuri būtų, jei laikinosios apsaugos priemonės nebūtų taikomos, taip pat kad nebus piktnaudžiaujama teise reikalauti taikyti šias priemones. Šiuo aspektu reikėtų akcentuoti, kad teisiniame reguliavime neturėtų būti nustatyti trumpi terminai teismo procesinių veiksmų atlikimui, priimant sprendimą dėl laikinųjų apsaugos priemonių taikymo. Be to, reikalinga koreguoti dabar galiojantį teisinį reguliavimą, kad teismui būtų įmanoma įvertinti preliminarius galimus pagrindinės bylos rezultatus bei nustatyti, ar nėra piktnaudžiaujama teise taikyti šias priemones.
