The norm on cutting trees of smaller diameter is recognized as inconsistent with the Constitution

It was concluded that the disputed norm defines a solution that was not included in the guidelines for the development of Forestry and related industries, and therefore the reduction of the diameter of the main felling does not correspond to the policy goal set in the guidelines to implement measures to increase the value of the forest. At the same time, ST concluded – since the disputed norm serves as a legal basis for such an activity that may have an impact on the environment, it essentially corresponds to a planning document, before the adoption of which a strategic assessment must be carried out.

Evaluating whether the contested norm may have a significant impact on the environment, ST finds that several risks that could cause damage to the environment were known during the development of the contested norm. The Cabinet of Ministers had partially assessed these risks, concluding that no significant impact on the environment was expected. However, ST points out that the actions taken by the Cabinet of Ministers do not indicate a comprehensive evaluation of the possible impact on the environment. In addition, both positive and negative impacts are assessed in a strategic assessment. The fact that requirements are additionally determined that may have a beneficial effect on the environment cannot be a reason for not conducting a strategic assessment. Accordingly, the information in the case indicated the possibility that the contested norm may have a significant impact on the environment or the protected natural area of ​​European importance.

Taking into account the above, the ST concluded that in the case under consideration the Cabinet of Ministers did not follow the procedure in which before the adoption of such a normative act, which may have a significant impact on the environment, the significance of the potential impact on the environment and the need to carry out a strategic assessment must be assessed. Had this procedure been followed, there is a possibility that a different decision would have been made regarding the need for a strategic assessment. Therefore, ST recognized that the principle of sustainability and the precautionary principle were not observed in the process of adopting the contested norm, thus the contested norm does not comply with Article 115 of the Constitution.