ИСК О ВОЗМЕЩЕНИИ ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКОГО ВРЕДА ОТ ПУБЛИЧНО-ПРАВОВОГО ДЕЛИКТА: ПРОБЛЕМЫ ПРИМИРИТЕЛЬНЫХ ПРОЦЕ-ДУР

Elena V. Titova; Elena N. Litviakova

doi:10.14529/law260307

Authors

Elena V. Titova South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia
Elena N. Litviakova South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14529/law260307

Keywords:

environmental harm, public-law tort, remediation, actio popularis, right to a favourable environment, mediation, public interest, settlement agreement, constitutional environmental law

Abstract

The article substantiates the thesis about the pseudo-frequency nature of a claim for compensation for environmental damage from a public law tort: being framed according to the model of a civil law tort obligation (Articles 1064, 1069 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; Articles 77-78 of Federal Law No. 7-FZ of January 10, 2002 "on environmental protec-tion"), such a claim is actually It is aimed at protecting the public good -a favorable environment (Article 42 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) and the interests of an indefinite circle of people. Using the example of the NTEK JSC case (on the recovery of 146.2 billion rubles) in favor of the budget), it is shown that the collected amounts are functionally intended to finance remediation, and not for individual compensation. Based on the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 30, 2017 No. 49 "on some issues of the application of legislation on compensation for damage caused to the environment", the authors argue the thesis about the structural impossibility of applying classical mediation to such disputes without special public guarantees: art. 1 of the Federal Law of 27 July 2010 Federal Law No. 193-FZ "on an alternative dispute settlement procedure involving an intermediary (mediation procedure)" excludes disputes affecting public interests from the scope of standard conciliation procedures. The multi-subjectivity of the authorized plaintiffs (Rosprirodnadzor, prosecutor, regional authorities, citizens, NGOs) brings the environmental claim closer to the construction of actio popularis. It is concluded that it is necessary to design a hybrid model of alternative environmental dispute resolution, including the mandatory participation of a public interest guarantor, judicial approval of a mediation agreement and a mechanism for monitoring the fulfillment of remediation obligations.

Author Biographies

Elena V. Titova, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia

Doctor of Law, Professor,, Director of the legal Institute, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia.

Elena N. Litviakova, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia

senior lecturer of the Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia.

References

Бринчук М. М. Экологическое право (право окружающей среды): учебник для вузов. М.: Юристъ, 1998. 688 с.

Васильева М. И. Публичные интересы в экологическом праве: теория и практика правового регулирования: автореферат дис. … д-ра юрид. наук. М., 2003. 44 с.

Шепель Т. В. Внедоговорные охранительные обязательства: состояние законодательства и цивилистической доктрины // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Право. 2018. № 29. С. 205–213.

Cassese S. Actio popularis and the Defence of Public Interests in European Administrative Law. European Public Law. 2016, Vol. 22, no. 4. pp. 615–630.

Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on envi-ronmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. Official Journal of the European Union. 2004, Vol. 143, pp. 56–75.