Source: https://aeaj.org/page/Case-study--Hungarian-case
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:00:34+00:00

Document:
Applicant 1: natural person (neighbour), represented by a lawyer.
Applicant 2: local government, represented by a lawyer.
The real estate is part of the Natura 2000 network, as it is a “priority natural habitat type”, and a proposed “site of Community importance” pursuant to the Habitats Directive Art. 4. (1) (Directive 92/43/ECC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild life fauna and flora). Additionally the area is a special protection area according to the Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/ECC on the conservation of wild birds), as it is habitat of the great bustard (otis tarda) listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive (no priority species!).
The project is covered by the provisions of the Directive 2003/35 EC (providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programs relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EC and 96/11/EC).
The public authority (Defendant 2), in view of the environmental expert’s report and the environmental impact assessment, alleges that the project would not affect the ecological integrity of the special protection area concerned, and the flock of the great bastards.
As the great bustard is not listed as a priority species the authority did not check if the project is justifiable on the ground of imperative reasons of overriding public interest such as: human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment (see Art 6. (4) second subparagraph).
The authority examined, however, the imperative reasons of overriding public interest in a wider sense (275/2004 Decree 4 § (2), which is a possible implementation of the Art 6 (4) first subparagraph, as “social or economic nature” is not defined there).
Applicants 1 and 2 brought an action for annulment before the administrative court against the authorisation for the accumulator-processing plant as the authority did not take into account the site’s conservation objectives (noise, air pollution, other disturbances of the habitat), and the alternative solutions, cumulative effects, ie on the whole content of the EIA concerning nature protection part.
However, according to the court of first instance’s (county court) view, , the owner of the neighbouring property (applicant 1) has no standing, as well as applicant 2 (local government) has no legal standing according the provisions of the national law concerning the protection, reservation, reparation of the environmental status of the great bustards. Nevertheless, the court adopted a judgement about the application and found the decision of the authority justified and legally well-founded and rejected the appeal of the applicants.
(The main reason for the lack of legal standing is the approach of the Hungarian appeal system, as the actio popularis is not applicable. According the Civil Procedural Code the applicant must have legal standing in the administrative procedure, or the case must be related to the applicant’s right or righteous interest, or it has to be a breach against his/her request for environmental information according the Aarhus Convention (Civil Procedural Code § 327).
Applicant 2 requested exceptional review before the Supreme Court.
for annulment of the decision concerning the authorisation of the accumulator-processing plant as the authority did not take into account the “priority natural habitat type” character of the site, and that the project as it has a negative effect on the site should be justified the interference with imperative reasons of overriding interest according § 10/A.(1) of the Decree No. 275/2004 (X. 8.) (which implements the Habitat, and the Birds Directive). Also, Applicant 2 attacked the part of the decision relating to its legal standing and maintained its previously presented legal standpoint and declarations.
(These facts were already mentioned during the procedure before the county court, however, the court neglected the facts).
(1) For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites.
(2) Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.
(3) Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.
(4) If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.
“ (1) Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives.
The definition of imperative reasons of overriding interest is word by word implemented in the decree.
What is remarkable in the Hungarian legislation is that “if the project has negative effect on a Natura 2000 site it has to be justified by imperative reasons of overriding interest in the case of natural habitat types of Community interest, and species of Community interest” too, not just in the case of priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species.
ab) that is otherwise interested in the decision brought in the process determined by this Decree. The environmental organisation according to Article 98, Paragraph (1) of Kvtv. shall always be considered concerned.” ) in the administrative procedure.
(1) ’Client’ shall mean any natural or legal person and any association lacking the legal status of a legal person whose rights or lawful interests are affected by a case, who is subjected to regulatory inspection, or who is the subject of any data contained in official records and registers, including any data concerning the property, rights and assets of the client.
(2) Unless otherwise prescribed by legal regulation, in proceedings relating to some facility or for the authorization of activities, ’client’ means all owners of properties located in the impact area, as well as the legitimate users of such properties registered in the real estate register.
(3) An act or government decree may prescribe a more precise definition for client in connection with certain specific types of cases.
(4) The rights of clients are also conferred upon the authorities participating in a case under vested competence.
(5) In specific cases interest representation organizations may be vested with the rights of clients, as well as non-governmental organizations whose registered activities are oriented for the protection of some basic rights or the enforcement of some public interest.
Article 109(1) of Ket. stipulates: “A person having standing and – in respect to a part of the decision that directly addresses him/her – any other participants of the procedure are entitled to ask the court competent in administrative cases by submitting a court complaint to revision the decision with legal force within 30 days from its communication”.
County level: the court has rejected the appeals on the ground that the authorization of the project cannot be rejected just because of the fact that it will be constructed on a Natura 2000 site, furthermore, the court has decided that the project does not endanger the protection, reservation, reparation of the environmental status of the great bustards.
(Defendant 2) to conduct a new procedure.
The authority did not take into account the “priority natural habitat type” character of the site and that the project, as it has a negative effect on the site, should be justified the interference with imperative reasons of overriding interest according § 10/A.(1) of the Decree No. 275/2004 (X. 8.) (which implements the Habitat, and the Birds Directive).
Additionally the authority did not examine the cumulative effects (EIA and Habitats Directive Art 6 (3) “combination with other plans”) and the alternative solutions (Art. 6 (4) first subparagraph) and the stated compensatory measures were not sufficient.
The judgement referred, because of the proposed site character, directly to the Dragaggi case, and the necessity of the appropriate protective measures.
Following the court’s instructions, the authority , shall take into account the whole reasoning of the judgement during its new procedure ie. by examining the above listed elements of the project.
3. Frequency of control: the procedure was launched by a natural person not ex officio. The frequency of control emerges just when the authority has to control e.g. example an illegal landfill.
The procedure concerned two levels of the court system (County level and the Supreme Court).
1. According to Governmental Decree No. 275/2004 (X. 8.) a proposed “site of Community importance” is protected at the same level as an approved SCI. How is it regulated in other countries?
Legal standing of the owner of the neighbouring property?
Local government? In which circumstances?
4. Is there further possibility for an appeal after the decision of the Supreme Court ?

References: Art. 4
 Art 6
 Art 6
 § 327
 § 10
 § 10
 Art 6