frsrdg · GR04JO1 · 2004-01-01 00:00:00 — This case concerns a statement made in by L.S. The Ombudsman against Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation has claimed that this was not the case and maintains that no measures were taken against L.S. but that the case has dealt exclusively with how VSK, the and dealt with the public expression by a commercial associate of VSK of an opinion that violates fundamental principles of human rights. I endorse the statement made by the Ombudsman against Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation in his response that this particular distinction could have been made more explicitly. On the issue that has been referred my appraisal is as follows. The adjudication included both criticism of the football clubs collaboration with the company in which L.S. was a partner and also a recommendation to those providing funding to review their continued support for the club while it continues to avail itself of the companys services. These statements cannot be perceived in this respect as having any other import than that collaboration with L.S. should be terminated. Such discontinuation of the contract was intended to lead to negative consequences for L.S. In practice, this declaration by the Ombudsman against Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation involved an intervention against L.S. on the grounds of his statements printed in the newspaper. The intervention was not, however, formally directed against L.S. and I cannot therefore claim that it contravenes the precepts of the Instrument of Government or the Freedom of the Press Act. However, in my opinion, it could be justly claimed that in the light of the principles underlying these precepts the adjudication could well have been worded differently. These comments will suffice. Complaint against for concerning supervision of a Natura 2000 site pursuant to the Environmental Code (Registration number 749-2002) In his adjudication of 17 January 2003, The Parliamentary Ombudsman, . , made the following observations. In a complaint submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen on February 25th, 2002, , Chairman of the for Nature Protec tion and from the Ornithologists requested review by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen of the in which for had dealt with a case concerning the supervision of a Natura 2000 site. The complaint contained the following information. for Nature Protection and the Ornithologists had contacted and other authorities some time previously to report that representatives of the Lysegård Golf Course had felled an area of broad-leaved deciduous and downstream from the Lysegård waterfall. This area had been designated as a Natura 2000 site. remitted the case to , which referred it back to . It was the opinion of that responsibility for monitoring Natura 2000 sites lay with , a circumstance of which had been unaware. then contacted the owner of the golf course about the infringement to point out that this form of action was unlawful. As the damage had already been done, considered that it could take no further action. I requested a statement from the forestry district, and received the following response. It is true that nobody in the forestry district was aware that the district was responsible for supervision of Natura 2000 sites. No information to this respect had been provided by . The Lysegård waterfall is a key habitat and a permit is required before measures such as felling trees may be taken in the area. However, the district had been unable to take any action retrospectively. I also requested information from for , and the response was as follows. The forestry district had failed to realise the significance of the designation of an area as a Natura 2000 site. It is not, however, easy to determine which regulations apply to the site. No more detailed information had been provided by . In the case under review it appears that some form of consultation took place in retrospect. The question that had now arisen was which authority, if any, was required to initiate proceedings against those who felled the trees, the forestry district or . Here it should be pointed out that had not supplied with any maps indicating the existing Natura 2000 sites. However, information had been received that this was in hand. The complaint was then referred to for for their investigation and response. submitted its response on after a statement had been requested from its District Office. The response stated the following. In 2002, the Protection had reported to district through that trees had been felled in the area concerned at Lysegård. A site visit enabled confirmation that this had occurred in an area registered as a key habitat. It was later established that it was a Natura 2000 site. The consultation prescribed by the Environmental Code had not taken place before the felling. It was also determined that the felling undertaken had not materially affected the natural values of the habitat and therefore the forestry district took no further action apart from informing the owner of the land of the consultation requirement before any further silvicultural activities took place in the key habitats on his property. Section 28 a of Chapter 7 of the Environmental Code lays down that a permit is required from before conducting any operation or taking any measure that can have significant impact on the environment in a Natura 2000 site. did not consider that any significant impact on the environment had resulted from the measures undertaken. The question of instituting proceedings therefore never arose. and submitted comments on the response received and reiterated their criticism of . The Regional Public Prosecution Office in submitted the information that a complaint had been received concerning unlawful impact on the environment and that it had been decided to initiate a preliminary investigation. The supervision exercised by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen is primarily intended to ensure that public authorities and their officials carry out their duties in compliance with the laws and other statutes and that they fulfil their obligations in other respects. Their enquiries are of a judicial nature and mainly concern the application of current procedural regulations. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen do not, on the other hand, review the conclusions reached on issues of fact, especially when these decisions are based on an appraisal of suitability or require special expertise. For this reason, I have restricted my enquiry to the question of whether the treatment of this case by was formally correct. Natura 2000 is a network of valuable sites that has been developed in the EU. It has been created by virtue of the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). Chapter 7 Section 27 of the Environmental Code stipulates that the government or an authority appointed by the government is to continuously keep a list of natural areas that should be afforded protection or have been afforded protection as special protection areas or special areas of conservation by virtue of these directives. The government has assigned the responsibility for maintaining this list to the (Section 15 of the Ordinance on Areas Protected Pursuant to the Environmental Code etc., 1998:1252). The protection afforded these areas consists mainly of the requirement that a permit must be sought for operations and measures that will have significant impact on them (7:28 a). Permit applications are reviewed by the County Administrative Boards (7:29 b). Section 4 of the Forestry Act (1979:429) stipulates that the provisions of the Environmental Code are to apply to permits for silvicultural measures. The listing or designation of a site as a special protection area or special area of conservation does not, according to 7:27 of the Environmental Code, prevent the area from being protected by other provisions as well, for instance as habitat protection areas pursuant to 7:11 of the Environmental Code. It is principally the County Administrative Boards that have operational responsibility for supervising the areas covered by 7:27 of the Environmental Code. Exceptions are provided, however, for measures subject to the Forestry Act and involve the felling of , for instance. The operational responsibility for monitoring operations and measures of this nature lies with the Regional Forestry Boards (see items A15 and A25 in the annex to the Ordinance on Supervision Pursuant to the Environmental Code, 1998:900). The enquiry in this case has shown that when the for Nature Protection reported that representatives of Lysegård golf course had felled trees in a Natura 2000 site, the forestry district was unaware of the extent of its responsibilities for supervising these sites. This is obviously unacceptable. The responses submitted make it clear that is now aware of its supervisory responsibilities. I assume that the Board has taken all the measures required to enable it to fulfil its future obligations in this respect and will therefore go no further than to express the criticism implied above. In this context I have noted that the question of prosecution for the reported infringement in this particular Natura 2000 site is currently under investigation by the prosecution authority. In no other respect do the complaints made in this case warrant further opinions or actions on my part. This closes the Parliamentary Ombudsmens review of this case. 11 kap. 1 § socialtjänstlagen (2001:453) 14 kap. 1 § socialtjänstlagen