The case of nature pests – Picture of the Day – Kommersant

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC) clarified how to deal with environmental disputes, emphasizing the importance of establishing the real cause of this harm. It is impossible to lay responsibility on local authorities only because the pollution occurred on their territory. At the same time, compensation for environmental damage collected from the violator can be aimed at eliminating both added and previously accumulated harm. Lawyers consider the position important for practice, but note the difficulty in determining the actual culprit of the pollution.

The Supreme Court has published a decision on the dispute over liability for soil pollution. In October 2020, Rosprirodnadzor, during an inspection of a land plot in Krasnodar, revealed a discharge of wastewater that polluted 1.5 thousand square meters. m of land. The results of the tests showed the excess of the maximum permissible concentrations for a number of substances, including ammonium, arsenic, manganese, lead, copper and oil products. State ownership of this site was not demarcated, and Rosprirodnadzor considered that the municipality was responsible for causing damage to soils on this land. In June 2021, the department offered the administration of Krasnodar to voluntarily compensate the damage in the amount of 1.8 million rubles, and then filed a lawsuit.

This is not the first time that the Krasnodar administration has received environmental claims. So, in February last year, the Arbitration Court of the Krasnodar Territory, at the request of Rosprirodnadzor exacted from the city authorities 2.7 million rubles. for damage to the Kuban River in connection with the discharge of sewage into it.

However, in the case of soil pollution, the same court took a different position, rejecting the claim of the department. The court pointed out that the payment of funds should be made at the expense of the municipal budget, and compensation goes to the same budget, as a result, “there is a coincidence in one person of the inflictor of harm and the recipient of compensation for this harm, which means that such a recovery is unacceptable.” The appeal and cassation agreed with this verdict.

The department complained to the Supreme Court, pointing out that such a decision completely exempts the administration from compensation for harm. At the same time, the municipal authorities did not take measures to restore the soil, did not eliminate the violation, and the courts completely avoided considering this issue, Rosprirodnadzor emphasized.

These arguments became the basis for transferring the case to the Economic Board of the Armed Forces, which on January 31 canceled all judicial acts and sent the dispute for a new consideration.

Explaining its decision, the Supreme Court noted that nature conservation is carried out according to the “polluter pays” principle, that is, persons conducting environmentally hazardous activities are obliged to finance measures to prevent or reduce negative environmental impacts.

When collecting funds from the budget to the budget, it is impossible to talk about the coincidence of the tortfeasor and the recipient of compensation, since in December 2021 the law on environmental protection was amended. Now the funds credited to local or regional budgets for claims for compensation for environmental damage have a strictly designated purpose, the board emphasized. They can be aimed at identifying and eliminating compensation for environmental damage that occurred earlier, but not eliminated (accumulated harm), or other measures to reduce the negative impact, restore the natural environment, rational use and reproduction of natural resources, the Supreme Court pointed out.

At the same time, the courts incorrectly recognized the administration as responsible for causing harm, the board decided. The municipality should not be held liable for harm caused by others “only by virtue of its ownership of the contaminated site,” the decision says.

The persons whose economic activity resulted in pollution are obliged to compensate for the damage, and the plaintiff, in this case Rosprirodnadzor, must prove the connection between the defendant’s actions and environmental damage.

In the case of joint infliction of harm by several persons, whose behavior was of a coordinated, coordinated nature, they compensate for the harm jointly and severally, the Supreme Court explained.

So, in the place of water discharge there is a storm sewer, during the inspection of which 201 illegal connections were revealed, but it was not found out who exactly connected to the collector. In addition, effluent from the household sewer serviced by OOO Krasnodar Vodokanal “repeatedly fell” into the main storm sewer collectors, the Sun noted. It is required to identify the “sources of pollutants” that have caused damage to the soils, and to establish who owns the disputed utility networks, who operates them and who discharges wastewater through them. “The recovery of compensation from the owner of the land without establishing the real tortfeasor can lead to the continuation of illegal actions by the perpetrators and their impunity,” concluded the Supreme Court.

The municipal administration is obliged to take measures to protect the environment on its territory, but because of this alone, it cannot by default be held liable for harm caused by third parties, Dmitry Motorin, Senior Lawyer for the Vegas Lex Environmental Department, supports the position of the Supreme Court. “If the object of harm is the soil of a site where state property is not demarcated, in theory any person can harm them,” says Orchards adviser Azat Akhmetov.

In fact, it is not easy to identify the violator of environmental legislation. According to Mr. Motorin, for this it is possible to examine the state of utility networks using special technical means or drones. To identify specific perpetrators of harm, you can also ask the district administrations about the organizations that operate the facilities that have become sources of pollution, adds Evgeny Zharov, managing partner of Zharov Group. It is even more difficult, says Mr. Akhmetov, to establish the source if it is mobile – “they caused harm and left.”

According to Yevgeny Zharov, the decision of the Supreme Court is also valuable because it distinguishes between the concepts of “accumulated harm” and “added harm”: “It is necessary to identify what new harm the defendant caused, what he added to the previously accumulated pollution, and he must answer for that.”

At the same time, targeted payments can be used to clean up not only the site that is being disputed, but also another natural object, he explains.

Although the decision of the Supreme Court complicates the recovery of environmental compensation from the municipality, this does not completely relieve it of responsibility, reminds the chairman of the A1 Bar Association Alexander Zablotskis: harm has been done, she may be held liable.”

Ekaterina Volkova, Anna Zanina