The analysis of the development of normative regulation and practice has confirmed that the Slovenian regulation of judicial protection against acts of encroachment on space since 2004, in which Slovenia ratified the Aarhus Convention, is significantly better adapted to the requirements of this Convention. conventionally required attributes of legal protection against spatial implementation acts (PIA) and concrete decisions on spatial interventions.
The discussion on constitutional and judicial protection presents the development and changes in the understanding of the existence of a legal interest in an initiative against PIA. I believe that the change in practice should also be reflected in the initiatives of members of the public concerned under the Convention; therefore outside the circle of landowners. However, even if the practice changes, the procedure of legal protection against PIA before the CPVO, as regulated by the ZUstS, is not conventionally appropriate for other reasons, which is why I believe that the basis and regulation of the administrative dispute established by ZUreP-2 should be strengthened. Some shortcomings have already been eliminated by ZUReP-3, while others - especially in relation to "judicial action" until the adoption of the new PIA and the role of spatial planning authorities - remain for future upgrades.
A range of different administrative decisions, which are the basis of environmental intervention, emerge from the presentation of permitting environmental interventions. The Slovenian Judicial Protection against these decisions has already undergone changes in the understanding of the legal interest, but further development is expected regarding the possibility of enforcing regulations intended (also) to protect health and / or establish a certain quality of the environment. The practice of the Court of Justice of the EU strongly interferes with the established administrative dispute with the position on the (in) admissibility of preclusion in proceedings against authorizations for interference from Article 6 of the Convention. As a new balance will need to be struck in these procedures, some solutions are proposed - also in the direction of preventing abuse of rights.
Therefore, in regulating the adoption and judicial review of environmentally relevant decisions, it would be advisable to strive for a special procedural law; probably including lay judges of technical and natural sciences.
|