Slovenia

Application U-I-386/06-32

Year filed: N/A
Year of most recent ruling: 2008
Court(s): Constitutional Court of Slovenia
Status: Decided
Plaintiff(s): Association for the Liberation of Animals and their Rights, Ponikva
Respondent(s): Government of Slovenia

Facts

The plaintiff challenged some of Slovenia’s environmental rules, arguing they didn’t meet the public participation requirements set out in the Aarhus Convention, which Slovenia had adopted.

Here’s how it all unfolded:

– The Aarhus Convention says the public should be involved in making laws.
– Slovenian law says national rules should follow international laws like the Aarhus Convention.
– The Nature Conservation Act in Slovenia helps make environmental rules, but it doesn’t include rules for public involvement.
– The contested rules were about protecting wild animals and how to handle brown bears.
– The plaintiff argued these rules were made without letting the public have a say, in violation of the Aarhus Convention.
– The plaintiff also argued these rules contravened portions of Slovenia’s Constitution, such as the right to a healthy environment (R2HE).
– The plaintiff argued that taking brown bears from the wild harmed nature and violated animal protection laws.
– The plaintiff argued they had a right to challenge these rules because they hadn’t been permitted to give their input when the rules were made, even though the plaintiff was affected by them.

Decision

The Court sided with the plaintiff, declaring the Nature Conservation Act unconstitutional.

The decision was based on the fact that the Nature Conservation Act didn’t allow for public involvement in making environmental rules. This contravened the Aarhus Convention, which provides that the public should be a part of environmental decisions, and also clashed with the Constitution, which mandated that Slovenia abide by international agreements.

Because the disputed ordinance and regulation were promulgated under the Nature Conservation Act, they were also deemed unconstitutional. The Court didn’t need to check if the process for making these rules followed the Constitution, because they had been made under an unconstitutional law.

As a solution, the Court voided both rules until the legislature could create a new Nature Conservation Act in compliance with the Aarhus Convention.