Date when decision was rendered: 13.8.2004

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1848; 2397/3/03

Reference to source

KHO 2004:76.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2004 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2004 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2004 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2008

Pages: pp. 80-89

Subject

access to court, environmental protection,
rätt till domstolsprövning, miljöskydd,
oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn, ympäristönsuojelu,

Relevant legal provisions

section 6-1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; section 20 of the Constitution Act; sections 61-3 and 63 of the Nature Conservation Act; sections 89 and 90-1 of the Hunting Act; section 25a-2 of the Hunting Decree; Articles 1-1, 5-a, 7-3 and 4, and 9-1-a of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (on the conservation of wild birds)

= förvaltningsprocesslagen 6 § 1 mom.; grundlagen 20 §; naturvårdslagen 61 § 3 mom. och 63 §; jaktlagen 89 § och 90 § 1 mom.; jaktförordningen 25a § 2 mom.; Rådets direktiv 79/409/EEG (om bevarande av vilda fåglar) 1 artikel 1 punkten, 5 artikel a punkten, 7 artikel 3 punkten och 4 punkten och 9 artikel 1-a punkten

= hallintolainkäyttölaki 6 § 1 mom.; perustuslaki 20 §; luonnonsuojelulaki 61 § 3 mom. ja 63 §; metsästyslaki 89 § ja 90 § 1 mom.; metsästysasetus 25a § 2 mom.; Neuvoston direktiivi 79/409/ETY (luonnonvaraisten lintujen kohtelusta) 1 artikla 1 kohta, 5 artikla a kohta, 7 artikla 3 kohta ja 4 kohta, 9 artikla 1-a kohta.

Abstract

The case was about the right of appeal of a regional ornithological association in a matter concerning section 25a of the Hunting Decree and derogations from the rules protecting certain common birds during their nesting time.The Supreme Administrative Court discussed the relevant provisions of the Hunting Act and the Hunting Decree against the background of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds.The Court noted that the Act and the Decree do not contain provisions corresponding to those in the Directive concerning the duty to take into account issues pertaining to the preservation of a bird population and their possibilities for reproduction when considering whether derogation can be made from the protection during nesting time of unprotected birds.Keeping in mind the requirement of effective implementation of EC law, the Court stated that there must be a possibility to have the lawfulness of derogation decisions reviewed in an appeal procedure, if necessary.The Court discussed various possibilities of appeal.In case of appeals concerning the Hunting Act, the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act shall be applied.Section 6-1 of this Act grants the right of appeal to any person to whom a decision is addressed or whose right, obligation or interest is directly affected by a decision.The Court also paid attention to the Nature Conservation Act and its section 61-3 which grants the right of appeal to registered local and regional associations whose purpose is to promote nature conservation or environmental protection.However, this right of appeal does not concern matters involving derogations under the said Act.The Court also referred to section 20 of the Constitution Act which, among other things, provides for a general duty to protect the environment and also a duty for the public authorities to endeavour to guarantee for everyone the possibility to influence the decisions that concern their own living environment.Taking into account Council Directive 79/409/EEC, the Nature Conservation Act and section 20 of the Constitution Act in the interpretation of section 6 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the right of appeal in a matter concerning derogations from the protection during nesting time of unprotected birds could be considered to belong to local or regional associations corresponding to those referred to in section 61-3 of the Nature Conservation Act.Therefore, the regional ornithological association had a right of appeal in this case.One dissenting member of the Court was of the opinion that the ornithological association was not affected by the decision as prescribed in section 6-1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act.Moreover, in his view section 20 of the Constitution Act could not be interpreted as to include an intention to directly expand the right of appeal in matters pertaining to the Hunting Act.

20.1.2005 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI