Studen Kladenets Dam, Bulgaria

Bulgarian proposals threaten environmental access to justice

A coalition of Bulgarian organisations supported by ClientEarth has called on the European Commission to protect access to justice in the face of new proposals from the country’s ruling party.

ClientEarth lawyer Sam Bright said: “If implemented, these new rules would violate the right to a fair trial and to secure access to justice without facing prohibitive costs. They are contrary to EU environmental law, international conventions and the Bulgarian Constitution.”

The proposals to amend Bulgaria’s Administrative Procedure Code (APC) and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) were submitted by members of the country’s ruling centre-right political party GERB this summer.

The suggested amendments would significantly limit access to justice in environmental cases and weaken the control of the courts over the environmental impacts of large-scale industrial projects.

The coalition has sent letters to Commissioners Karmenu Vella, Corina Creţu, and Věra Jourová, to seek support from the European Commission.

Limiting access to justice: contrary to EU law

The proposed amendment to the APC would significantly increase the fees and costs of conducting certain administrative cases, including cases concerning environmental impact assessments (EIAs). This increase would limit the ability of citizens and organisations to appeal administrative acts in court, as they would struggle to afford the increased fee.

The proposed amendments to the EPA would impose a strict six month limit on the duration of appeals of impact assessments of large-scale infrastructure projects classified as being “of national importance”.

Collecting environmental information (such as monitoring migration patterns) required for the judicial review of EIAs, often takes longer than six months. Courts may therefore be unable to base their decisions on the latest information and will be in breach of the EIA Directive.

Projects of national importance will also be subjected to just one court review – with no possibility of appeal. Smaller projects, which are not of national importance, will then be subject to greater scrutiny than these important, large-scale projects. This is contrary to basic principles of environmental law.

Sam added: “These proposals have not been debated in public, and have not been subjected to proper scrutiny in Parliament. We have real concerns about the transparency of this process and about the ability of citizens to participate in decisions that could have significant impacts on their rights.”

A vote on the proposals is expected to take place during the plenary session of the Bulgarian Parliament in September 2017.

Share this...
Share on Facebook! Tweet this! Share on LinkedIn! Email!

Rumena Zlatkova

Related articles

More from or

  • glass wall

    EU court enforces transparency obligations in Commission administrative procedures

    New analysis by Maximillian Kemp – EU court enforces transparency obligations in Commission administrative procedures.

  • passenger

    ClientEarth launches legal action to avert another Dieselgate

    New rules which allow car manufacturers to keep their emissions control systems secret from the public risk another Dieselgate scandal.

  • ClientEArth: Chairty Times Charity of the Year

    ClientEarth celebrates wins, recognition and rankings surge at FT and Charity Times awards

    Environmental law teams across ClientEarth are celebrating this morning following recognition at two major awards ceremonies last night, in multiple categories.

  • timber planks across grass

    EU abandons leadership on access to justice on international stage

    The EU’s proposal not to adopt the UN’s findings that it is breaching international law by blocking EU court access in environmental matters has been rejected.

  • Follow us

    You can help

    Your support helps us use the law to protect your environment.