On forms and procedure for compensation of harm caused to the environment

The subject of the study is the laws on forms and procedure for compensation of harm to the environment, as well as its application in practice. On the basis of the theoretical provisions, legislation and court practice, the authors aim to suggest directions of improvement of legislation and law enforcement practice in the sphere of property liability for harm to the environment. A systemic approach using formal-logical, comparative-legal methods is used in the research. The authors conclude that the applicable laws do not explicitly set the priority of the monetary or natural forms of reparation of environmental damage, in fact the choice of the method remains with the plaintiff. The court assesses the objective possibility of the restoration of the environment, the ability to eliminate the irregularities and carry out the necessary works within a reasonable period of time, the complexity of upcoming restoration events, as well as measures the defendant has already taken to restore the natural balance. At present, there is no uniform approach to the issue of the costs already incurred for remediation. The choice of the form of compensation must ensure the most complete recovery of the environmental condition as close to pre-violation in the shortest time possible and with minimum costs. For effective redress in a natural form it is necessary to ensure adequate oversight (supervision) of the progress and quality of the defendant's restoration work. When selecting the monetary form, the realization of this goal can be achieved by a strictly targeted use of the collected funds. The absence of such a mechanism now leads to a loss of the compensation functions of the institute of compensation of harm if the monetary form is used. It seems necessary to adopt mandatory rules to target the use of recovered funds for claims on compensation of harm to the environment. Liability for environmental harm is based on public interest. Along with public interest and personal non-property right of everyone to favorable environment, it is necessary to recognize the possibility of causing damage to the owner or another right holder in respect of an object of nature. It is proposed to expand the principle of the multifaceted value of nature, fixed by the legislator, to responsibility for damages caused to them, and, thus, to distinguish between civil law and ecological responsibilities as independent species. In current conditions, from the ecological and legal point of view, a natural form of reparation should have priority compared to the monetary form. In case of the establishment of mandatory rules to target the use of recovered funds for environmental claims, both forms will meet the performance criteria. Selection will be based on the assessment of all the circumstances of the case, which will allow the most effective way to restore natural balance.

Keywords

Authors

References