Оспорване на административните актове на компетентните по Закона за опазване на околната среда органи по административен ред
Challenging the administrative acts of the competent authorities under the Environmental Protection Act by administrative procedure

Summary/Abstract: This article examines the issue of challenging administrative acts issued by the Directors of the Regional Inspectorates of Environment and Water concerning the environmental assessment of plans and programmes under the Environmental Protection Act, before the Minister of Environment and Water as the immediately superior administrative authority. The study explores the obligation of the Minister of Environment and Water, as established in Article 97(2) of the Administrative Procedure Code (APC), to decide the matter on the merits when annulling a decision on environmental assessment, as well as the legal consequences for the interested parties arising from the failure to exercise this power. The article concludes that there is a need for a corrective interpretation of the provisions of Article 98(1) APC in conjunction with Article 145(2)(2), second alternative APC, which define the subject matter of judicial review in such cases, as well as for restoring the regulation of Article 145(2)(2) APC to its wording prior to the 2011 amendment. An analysis is provided of judicial decisions that assess, in differing ways, the admissibility of challenges against decisions of the Minister of Environment and Water whereby the contested administrative act on environmental assessment issued by the Director of the respective Regional Inspectorate of Environment and Water has been annulled without the matter being decided on the merits. The article concludes that the 2011 amendment to Article 145(2)(2) APC is incapable of expressly justifying the exclusion of judicial review with respect to decisions of the superior administrative authority that modify an issued administrative act without resolving the matter on the merits. Consequently, a corrective and case-specific interpretation of the provision, tailored to the circumstances of the individual case, is both permissible and necessary.

• Details
• Contents