For the first time in our country, the highest court last week adopted a general legal opinion, obliging the state to ensure a healthy living environment. This means that the top of the judiciary stood behind the rights of the citizens to live in a healthy and clean environment.
With that, a legal ground was created, so that if the citizens suffer damage from some pollution, they can sue the state.
About the meaning of the Supreme Court’s decision, we spoke with Nikola Jovanovski from the Center for Legal Research and Analysis, a civil organization that, with other organizations and state institutions, is part of the platform for environmental justice.
BIRN: The Supreme Court adopted a general legal opinion that obliged the state to provide clean air, water and a healthy environment. What exactly does that mean? Does this mean that anyone can sue the state for air pollution or only those who have health consequences?
This means that in the future, any citizen who believes that their right to a healthy environment has been violated or has direct or indirect damage to their health or the health of someone close to their family caused by water, soil, air or other pollution, can initiate a legal dispute against the state because it did not provide protection. For example, if the state does not prevent juridical or natural persons from burning materials that pollute the ambient air, or that pour or throw waste into rivers and lakes, thereby polluting them, or pollute with different waste or preparations the soil on which other people live or cultivate.
BIRN: What would that procedure entail, how long would it last and what are the expectations and what would be the final result?
The Supreme Court established the general principle that citizens can sue the state in an administrative dispute before the administrative courts, the Administrative Court and the Higher Administrative Court. The procedure for an administrative dispute according to the Law on Administrative Disputes should be completed in the first instance, before the Administrative Court within 9 months. In the administrative dispute procedure, the administrative courts establish illegality in the actions of the state and oblige it to act by the law. Before the administrative courts, citizens can request compensation for damages or if the administrative courts do not determine compensation for damages, the citizen can request that in a civil procedure.
BIRN: Do you expect this opinion to cause a domino effect and the state to start changing laws and regulations and encourage the state to provide better air quality?
The general position of the Supreme Court of the RSM is clear in determining the positive obligation of the state. By this general position, the state is obliged to adopt a national plan for the protection of ambient air, which has not been adopted for 8 years, which will include measures for clean and quality ambient air. The general position of the Supreme Court is the basis for realizing the right to a healthy environment, not only to ambient air. This means that citizens can seek judicial protection if they believe that there is pollution in any of the segments of the environment.
Author: Vasko Magleshov