Dear colleagues and friends,

    We are delighted to present you with the first Bulletin which describes the activities of the center for Environmental Law(CEL). Here you can find information about:

1. How CEL was created and what are its intentions.


2. How it started out.


3. What cases the CEL lawyers went to court for. What legal difficulties arose.


4. Which states authorities we made contact with.


5. What our plans are for the coming months.


6. What our future expectations are.

1.   How was CEL created and what are its intentions.

   The Center for Environmental Law (CEL) was created in October 2002 under a project financed by a grant from the Regional Environmental Center for CEE – Sentendre, Hungary, and with the assistance of the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands under the Regional Program for Environmental Protection in Southeastern Europe.

   CEL was created through collaboration between Ecological Association “Demetra” and Hristo Ivanov, lawyer.

   The project is led by Alexander Kodjabashev-lawyer and chairman of the management body of Ecological Association “Demetra”.

   The main objective of the project is to ensure the effective and accurate implementation of environmental legislation, to ensure the respect of the constitutional right of living in a friendly and healthy environment (article 55 from the constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria) and the ensuing rights for access of environmental information, public participation in environmental decision-making, and the access to justice.

   The immediate objectives of the project are:

1. to establish and develop a sustainable center for legal and consultative activities in the sphere of environmental law.


2. dissemination and improvement of the knowledge of environmental law within the different target groups – lawyers, administration and citizens.


3. to create narrower connection between those members of the professional community, interested in environmental law both on a regional and national level.

   CEL is committed to fulfilling its goals through:

1. defense of citizens and NGOs at court. CEL will aim at identifying areas, in which the administrative and judicial practices do not correspond to the content and spirit of environmental legislation – in such cases CEL’s objective will be to attack the unlawful acts of administration and court using the means provided by the law. Cases that match the Center’s objectives will be taken by CEL and the NGOs and citizens concerned will be defended for free.
2. Organization of seminars for lawyers, state and municipal administration, NGO representatives. Internships for students of law are also part of the CEL activities plan.
3. Setting up discussion forums on questions regarding judicial problems in the sphere of environmental law. CEL has planned the organization and coordination of an online forum on judicial problems in the sphere of environmental law and at least two national meetings between lawyers working in the field of environmental law.
4. offering state and municipal authorities legal consultations and analyses in the process of environmental decision making.

The address of the CEL is:
Sofia, 5”Graf Ignatiev” str. fl 2, office 208
Telephone/fax 9813315
e-mail cep@bluelink.net
website http://cep.bluelink.net

The Center for Environmental Law lawyers team meet clients after an appointment is made by phone or e-mail.

2.   How did the CEL activities start?

   The CEL activities was unofficially started in October 2002, when lawyers from the Center appeared before court on a number of cases, started by environmentalists against orders of the minister of environment and waters regarding the EIA of a project for the Bansko ski zone in the Pirin National Park.

   In October 2002, CEL formed the CEL Consultative council. Among the members are: prominent members of the environmental society – associate professor Radi Radev from association “Ecoforum”, Boriana Hristova from association “Briast” and Andrei Kovatchev from association for wildlife ”Balkani”. The CEL consultative council has as its aim and objective the task of communicating the topical problems of the environmental sphere to the CEL specialists. Its existence does not necessarily imply that CEL will connect to the public only and solely through the CC, on the contrary, we are open to the needs of each and every citizen, organization, institution or foundation.

   The CEL official opening took place on November 29, 2002 at the premises of the CEL office. Present were Margarita Mateeva, executive director of REC for CEE, Neli Ilieva from the Ministry of Environment and Waters, Stephen Stek, Dana Romanesku and Tzvetelina Borissova from the REC headquarters for CEE in Hungary, journalists and respresentatives of the environmental circles.

   A message was disseminated among law students inviting them to apply for internships at CEL. We got 8 applications from students of law , and 4 of them were singled out and will work with CEL at different stages of our planned activities.

   The initial applications for taking part in the online forum on problems of environmental law were also received.

3.   What cases did the CEL lawyers defend at court? What kind of problems arose?

•    The CEL lawyers (Alexander Kodjabashev and Antoaneta Piperkova) appeared before court on a number of cases, started by environmentalists against orders of the minister of environment and waters regarding the EIA of a project for the Bansko ski zone in the Pirin National Park. The sittings of the Supreme Administrative Court for those cases were in October 2002. Some of the cases have already been decided by the court of the first instance. All appeals have been turned down.
  
     The main difficulty in the defense of the appeals on those cases is the refusal of the Supreme Administrative Court to allow evidence (especially experts' reports), that would help verify the facts that have been stated in the EIA report and the conclusions of the EIA experts. Some of those facts and conclusions have direct bearing to the application of environmental protection acts and this was the defense's argument when asking for admission of this evidence. Until present though, the Supreme Administrative Court has only concluded that "it has not been given the right to judge whether the experts included in the team are competent and whether their assessment is incomplete"
  
     Another point of great significance concerning the defense of such cases in the future is the relationship between the EIA of the Territorial Infrastructural Plan and the EIA of the particular investment plan. As we know, the Environmental Protection Act (abrogated) provides for both an EIA of the Territorial Infrastructural Plan and an EIA of the plans that will be carried out according to the TIP. In the case with the ski zone in Bansko we have a correlation between the EIA of the TIP and the EIA of the project, coming from the fact that the law necessitates a separate EIA or each and every separate ski slope. The defense of appeal was firm in its view that the administrative body needs to carry out a complete EIA procedure for each and every slope planned, including open public discussions and public participation. The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the EIA procedure for the investment plan of the ski zone in Bansko has been kept to and this suffices to assume that the individual ski slope EIAs provided for by the plan can be carried out without public participation.
  
•    The CEL lawyers also provided defense for а litigation concerning an order of the Minister of Environment and Waters regarding the expansion of Sofia Airport. The case was seated in October 2002.
  
     What’s interesting about this case is that in 2002 the minister of EW signed the EIA decision which was drafted in 2001. Meanwhile some of the provisions of the decision were changed in a way that could cause negative public influence. The litigator’s defense insisted that during the appeal procedure the court gather evidence concerning the fulfillment of the conditions of the EIA decision from 2001, as far as that decision contains some elements of EIA of an operating project.
  
     The defending party’s lawyers – MEW and the project investor insisted that the litigation is unacceptable because it concerns an order that maintains a previous EIA order, i.e. a new EIA decision is not concerned.
  In the end the court proceeded with the case but terminated it on grounds similar to the arguments stated by the defendants’ lawyers.
  
     We have filed an appeal at the 5 member council of the Supreme Administrative Court and we are expecting a decision from the court of cassation.
  
•    Alexander Kodjabashev was defense for a plaintiff from the village of Elshitza, concerning a case for the termination of illegal pollution (art.30 from the Environmental Protection Act-abrogated.). The issue of amount of the lawyer’s fee (paid by the party who win the case at the court of first instance) has still not been decided on. The Panagiurishte regional Court is expected to announce its decision on whether a fee of BGN 1,200 is too high for a case of legal and factual complexity as the one already decided by the same judge.
  
     The case at the Panagiurishte Regional Court might turn into a Bulgarian precedent for a situation that has history all over the world-the economically strong party, under threat of financial loss talk citizens out of suing them.

4.   Which state institutions did we seek contact with?

   CEL looked for collaboration with the Ministry of Environment and Waters as well as with the Institute for Public Administration and European Integration.

   MEW was offered to include CEL representatives in the workgroups, preparing some of the additional acts, which should be drafted and issued according to the new Environmental Protection Act.

The CEL specialists are interested in the following acts:

1. Regulation on the conditions, procedures and methods for environmental assessment of plans and programs-art. 90, § 1 from the Environmental Protection Act.


2. Regulation on the conditions and procedures for EIA of investment proposals- art. 101, § 1 from the Environmental Protection Act.


3. Regulation on the conditions and procedures for the issue of permits under art. 116, § 1 from the Environmental Protection Act.


4. Regulation on the conditions and procedures for the issue of complex permits under art. 117, § 1 from the Environmental Protection Act.

   As of today, we have received no reply from the Minister of Environment and Waters.
The Institute for Public Administration and European Integration has collaborated with us and we have been included in the training workshop catalogue for state and municipal administration. The training course is due February 2003.

5.   What are our plans for the upcoming months?

   In the next three months (January-March 2003) we are planning on fulfilling the following activities:

1.    We will start an online forum for the discussion of judicial problems. We hope the contents of the hereby bulletin will motivate a larger number of lawyers to join the online discussion.
   
2.    By the end of February or the beginning of March we will conduct the first training courses with NGO representatives (citizens) and administration representatives (state and municipal employees). For now the topics of the courses have been defined as follows: access to environmental information (Chapter 2 from the Environmental Protection Act – What is environmental information – art. 19 from the Environmental Protection Act; grounds for limiting the access to information – art. 20 from the Environmental Protection Act – the practice of some European countries in interpreting some of the limitations; exercise in the availability of a public test from the information disclosure – art. 20, § 4 from the Environmental Protection Act; separation of limited access information from the other kinds of information – art. 20, § 5 from the Environmental Protection Act; impossibility for limiting the access in case of emissions – art. 20, § 6 from the Environmental Protection Act), EIA of investment proposals (Chapter 6 from the Environmental Protection Act – projects liable to EIA – [art. 92 and art. 93 from the Environmental Protection Act; informing the affected residents about the investment intentions – art. 95 from the Environmental Protection Act; organizing and conducting a public discussion of the EIA report – art. 97 from the Environmental Protection Act; making and announcing the decision for EIA – art. 99 from the Environmental Protection Act), duties of the local authorities under Law on Limitation of the Harmful Impact of Waste; possibilities for regulating environmental problems on a local level (judicial problems and possibilities under art. 11 of the Local Government and Local Administration Act. Techniques for avoiding conflicts between local environmental protection regulations and legislation).
   
3.    By the end of March 2003 we will organize a national forum for lawyers interested in environmental law. We hope that a large part of the forum topics will be suggested by the participants in the online discussion.

   Of course, we will keep developing our main legal and consultative activities all along and we will keep you informed on the matter.

6.   What are our expectations for the future

   Our expectations are connected with our deepest concern about the state of the environment and the correct and equal application of the environmental legislation.

   That is why we expect the citizens and the NGOs to seek our help when in need of legal help and advice for protecting their constitutional right to a friendly and healthy environment.

   We expect from out colleague lawyers interesting and beneficial conversations and discussions, which will be useful for all the participants regardless of their opinions.

   In the name of fulfilling the main goal of law – to be truly a science for the good and the just. And in order for the law to be administered in an equal manner towards each person for fulfilling the principle stated under art. 6, § 2 of the Constitution – all citizens are equal before law.