Dobrodošli

Poslanstvo Pravno-informacijskega centra nevladnih organizacij – PIC  je strokovna, pravna podpora posameznikom, ranljivim skupinam in nevladnim organizacijam pri uveljavljanju in varstvu pravic ter krepitvi njihovega položaja v družbi.
id="ja-subhead" style="background: url(http://www.pic.si/templates/mi_pic/images/headers/sh01-bg1.jpg) no-repeat bottom left;">

Dobrodošli

Poslanstvo Pravno-informacijskega centra nevladnih organizacij – PIC  je strokovna, pravna podpora posameznikom, ranljivim skupinam in nevladnim organizacijam pri uveljavljanju in varstvu pravic ter krepitvi njihovega položaja v družbi.
Udeležba na seminarju

V sodelovanju s Planet GV se bomo dne 27. oktobra 2011, udeležili seminarja s knjigo "Izvršba in Zakon o preprečevanju zamud pri plačilih".

Povezava na stran: www.planetgv.si

 
Poročilo ob zaključku projekta REACT

MAREC 2011 

Ob zaključku projekta REACT, smo pripravili poročilo o izsledkih aktivnostih, ki jih želimo deliti z vami. Poročilo lahko preberete v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku. 

pdf REACT - poročilo

pdf REACT - report (in english) 

 

 
Price of Justice
 
NOVEMBER 2010
  

SLOVENIA

 

The purpose of this legal analysis is to discover the legal framework and practice of the respective Member State and whether the costs of bringing a case are a barrier to access to justice.

 

       I.            Country information

Currency: EURO

EUR exchange rate: GDP per capita: 22.200 EUR (data for 2007)

Human Development Index: The HDI for
Slovenia is 0.923, which gives the country a rank of 26th out of 179 countries with data (data for 2006, published in 2008)


    II.            Administrative and judicial procedural costs

A) Administrative procedural costs

What is the amount of procedural duty or fee to be paid for an appeal (in EUR)?

Administrative fee for an appeal is 14,18 EUR.


Who pays the procedural duty or fee for an appeal?

Person liable for the payment of procedural duty or fee is a person, who institutes an administrative procedure or on who's request acts are performed, documents are issued that are envisaged in schedule of fees.

Is there a waiver or an allowance, based either on the nature of the case or on personal characteristics of the appellant?

Waivers based on the nature of the case are set in Article 28 of Administrative Fee Act, where it is determined, which documents and actions are exempt from fees. These are proposals, appeals, notices and other applications, submitted for ensuring public interest.

Waivers based on personal characteristic of the appellant are set in Article 122 of General Administrative Procedure Act. Body conducting the proceedings, can exempt a party from all or a part of the costs if it realizes that this person cannot pay them without detriment to maintenance of themselves and their family. Body conducting the proceedings can also determine payment of installments or deferment of payment of the costs, if the costs are high. The exemption from the costs is valid for the expenditures of the body, leading the procedure, such as official persons` travel costs, expenses incurred by witnesses, experts, interpreters, inspection, advertisement, etc. and for lodging of a security for the costs.

Who bears the costs if the appeal was successful (is there a refund of procedural duty or fee)?

Every party bears the costs of the procedure before the decision of the procedural costs is issued.

If the procedure started ex officio and the procedure ended favorably for the party, the costs have to be payed by the body, except for the personal costs of the party (costs for arrivals, lost of time, loss of earnings.

Nevertheless General Administrative Act does not have a specific article that would determine, who payes the costs if the appeal was successful. There are only general articles about the payment of the whole procedure.

If a person payed a procedural fee and its appeal was successful, he is entitled to reimbursement of all or excessive payed fee. He can get the fee back with a claim, which has to be submitted not later than 60 days from the day when its appeal was successful.


Who bears the costs of evidence in an administrative procedure?

There is nothing specific said about the costs of evidence in Slovenian General Administrative Procedure Act. Only Article 115, third Paragraph says that if the procedure starts upon a motion by the party and it can be expected that there will be special expenditures in cash (regarding evidence, inspection,...) the body, leading the procedure can determine that the party shall pay in advance the amount necessary to cover the costs which are envisaged to be incurred in the production of such evidence. If the party does not pay in advance the necessary amount within a set period, the body can drop the production of evidence or stop the procedure, except if the continuation of the procedure is in public interest.

How much is approximately the total cost of evidence in a typical environmental administrative procedure (in EUR)?

It is very difficult to provide an answer to this question, because there are no costs prescribed by Slovenian law.  It depends on the fact what the appellant is willing to provide as evidence to the administrative body.

B) Judicial procedural costs

a) Administrativejudicial procedure

What is the amount of procedural duty or fee to be paid for the start of a procedure (in EUR)?

According to Slovenian Court Fees Act (Zakon o sodnih taksah - ZTS-1) schedule of fees - heading number 6 (6111) is the amount of procedural fee for the start of a procedure 148 EUR.

What is the amount of procedural duty or fee to be paid for an appeal (in EUR)?

According to Slovenian Administrative Dispute Act (Zakon o upravnem sporu - ZTS-1) schedule of fees - heading number 6 (6121) is the amount of procedural fee for an appeal 164 EUR.

Who pays the aforementioned procedural duty or fee?

Procedural fee has to be payed by the party that proposes to institute a proceeding, unless otherwise stipulated by this Act.

Is there a waiver or an allowance, based either on the nature of the case or on personal characteristics of the appellant?

State and state authorities, self-governing local communities and self-governing local community bodies and some other organizations (humanitarian and invalidity organizations) are exempt from the payment of procedural fee, according to Article 10, Paragraph 1 of Court Fees Act.


A party may only be exempt from payment of the court fees if otherwise the funds available for maintenance of the party and their family would be reduced to a considerable extent - Article 11, Paragraph 1 of
Court Fees Act.

If the court adjudicates on a right, obligation or legal benefit in an administrative dispute, it shall apply the provisions of the Law on the Civil Procedure for the decision relating to the costs of the procedure. The party shall always be billed for costs incurred through his/her own fault, as well as those costs incurred by any chance occurrence affecting this party - Article 25, Paragraph 1,2 of Administrative Dispute Act.

Who bears the costs of evidence in the procedure?

There are no special provisions regarding the costs of evidence in the procedure in Slovenian Administrative Dispute Act. Only general provisions set in Article 25, Paragraph 3, 4, where it is determined that if the court grants the lawsuit and removes the contested administrative act or determines its illegality, the plaintiff is attributed a lump sum recovery of costs. Attributed amount is payed by the defendant.

If the court rejects the lawsuit or the procedure is terminated, each of the parties shall be billed for their own costs related to the procedure.


How much is approximately the total cost of evidence in a typical environmental administrative judicial procedure (in EUR)?

It is very difficult to provide an answer to this question, because there are no costs prescribed by Slovenian law.  It depends on the fact what the appellant is willing to provide as evidence to the Administrative Court.

To what extent does the "loser pays principle" prevail in such procedures?

According to Slovenian administrative legislation the"loser pays principle" prevails in all administrative procedures.

b) Civiljudicial procedure

What is the amount of procedural duty or fee to be paid for the start of a procedure (in EUR)?

According to Slovenian Court Fees Act (Zakon o sodnih taksah - ZTS-1) Article 16 to be read also in conjunction with schedule of fees - heading number 1 (1111) the amount of procedural fee to be payed for the start of a procedure depends on consideration of the value of the matter in dispute. For example if the value of the matter in dispute is up to 1.500,00 EUR the procedural fee is 135 EUR.

What is the amount of procedural duty or fee to be paid for an appeal (in EUR)?

The amount of procedural fee to be payed for an appeal again depends on consideration of the value of the matter in dispute. For example if the value of the matter in dispute is up to 1.500,00 EUR the procedural fee is the same as by the start of the procedure - 135 EUR.


Who pays the aforementioned procedural duty or fee?

According to Slovenian Civil Procedure Act the fee has to be payed by the party submitting the appeal.

Is there a waiver or an allowance, based either on the nature of the case or on personal characteristics of the appellant?

Civil Procedure Act determines in Article 168 that in civil procedure provisions from Court Fees Acts shall be used. This means that the state and state authorities, self-governing local communities and self-governing local community bodies and some other organizations (humanitarian and invalidity organizations) are exempt from the payment of procedural fee, according to Article 10, Paragraph 1 of Court Fees Act.

Furthermore if the party, which was exempt from the payment of procedural fee succeeded in the procedure, procedural fee has to be payed by the opponent.   


Who bears the costs of evidence in the procedure?

According to Civil Procedure Act, Article 153 the party moving for the production of a piece of evidence shall pay in advance, upon a court order, the amount necessary to cover the costs which are envisaged to be incurred in the production of such evidence.


If both parties suggest the production of a piece of evidence, the court decides that both parties shall pay in advance the costs in equal amounts.

How much is approximately the total cost of evidence in a typical environmental civil judicial procedure (in EUR)?

Very hard to estimate - up to 20.000 EUR.


To what extent does the "loser pays principle" prevail in such procedures?

Also in civil judicial procedure "looser pays principle" prevails, because Article 154 of Civil Procedure Act states that the party losing the litigation shall refund the costs incurred by the winning party and their intervener.

c) Legal aid (optional questions)

Is there a state supported scheme in your country for providing legal assistance in administrative or judicial procedures?

Yes.

If your answer is yes, please detail briefly:

We have Free Legal Aid Act (ZBPP-NPB2), according to which judicial protection is possible in front of every court of general jurisdiction and in front of specialized courts in Slovenia, in front of Constitutional Court and all organs, institutions and persons in Slovenia that are competent for settling disputes out-of-court.

Who can use such legal aid?

•-         citizens of the Republic of Slovenia;

•-         foreigners with residence authorization or provisional residence permit in the Republic of Slovenia;

•-         other foreigners under conditions of reciprocity;

•-         nongovernmental organizations and associations, who are non-profit and work in public interest;

•-         other people, for which law or international treaty, binding for Slovenia, says that they are entitled to free legal aid.

What kind of procedures is eligible for legal aid?

Legal aid can be approved for legal advice, legal representation and other legal services set by the law, for all forms of judicial protection in front of all courts of general jurisdiction and specialized courts in Slovenia, in front of Constitutional Court and in front of all organs, institutions or persons in Rep. of Slovenia, who are competent for settling disputes out-of-court.

To what extent does legal aid cover full costs of legal assistance in the procedures?

Legal aid can be granted in the case for:

•-         legal advice, which exceeds first legal advice;

•-         legal advice and representation to conclude a court settlement;

•-         legal advice and representation in the procedure in front of the courts on first and second instance;

•-         legal advice and representation in connection with extraordinary judicial review;

•-         legal advice and representation in connection with constitutional appeal;

•-         legal advice and representation in front of international courts;

•-          legal advice and representation by lodging  request for constitutional review;

•-         as exemption from payment of the costs of court proceedings:

Also other exemptions from costs are possible (for interpreters, experts, costs for authentic instruments and certificates needed in the court procedures,...).

 

 III.          Country evaluation

Which are the most significant [a) administrative, b) administrative judicial, c) civil judicial] procedures in your country in the protection of the environment?

For Slovenia administrative procedure, since we have very little administrative judicial procedures. However quite a lot of sues are filled in front of civil courts, but mainly for the compensations and not really for the protection of the environment.

According to your evaluation, does your country meet the requirements of the Aarhus Convention regarding expenses of seeking administrative and/or judicial remedies?

In general, Slovenia meets these requirements. Under Slovenian legislation all public benefit NGOs have access to free legal aid, also administrative and court fees are not very high. But nevertheless, NGOs have problems with getting qualitative lawyers and covering the costs of expert opinions.

What arguments support your above position?

Under Free Legal Aid Act NGOs have access to free lawyers, but they are appointed from the list of Ministry of Justice. Since Slovenia lacks environmental lawyers, they usually get lawyers specialized for administrative law, who are not very acquainted with environmental law, especially the Aarhus rights. Thus, their legal aid is not as thorough or qualitative as it should be.

Under Slovenian procedural law the client who proposes an evidence has to pre-pay it's expenses. Expert analysis are very often needed in environmental cases and NGOs cannot afford them or they don't even have knowledge, what kind of expertise or studies to use.

What recommendations can you formulate in this matter?

NGOs with public benefit status should be exempt from the pre-payment provisions. If the evidence would be declared as needed by the responsible person/judge in the procedure, the cost of the evidence should be paid from the organ's budget.

Legal NGOs should have a possibility to represent other NGOs and get payment for their work (not just for the first legal advice, but for all their work). Our system is set in a way that only lawyers can get payment for their work, but the NGOs only get reimbursement of the costs in the procedure.

This publication was sponsored by the European Commission – LIFE+ programme. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and  the Environment of the Netherlands


 

 

 
National Access to Justice Toolkit

National Access to Justice Toolkit

SLOVENIA

The purpose of this toolkit is to provide an instrument to the users of access to justice rights (both the public and civil society organizations) by summarizing J&E partner organizations' experience and extracting the relevant lessons learned.

I.                    The legal problem

a)      What is a typical legal problem regarding access to justice in environmental matters in your country?

The most typical legal problem in Slovenia regarding access to justice is the problem of legal standing. According to Environmental Protection Act (EPA) the public concerned in environmental procedures includes persons permanently residing in the area concerned or owning or possessing a real estate and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) if they have status of an environmental protection non-governmental organization acting in public interest. However, NGOs gain such a status if they fulfill several conditions set by EPA, which are very strict (e.g. the number of employees, 5 years of activity in the field of environmental protection, financial audit) and almost preventing NGOs to gain the aforementioned status.

Furthermore, the Ministry of the Environment started issuing decisions only in 2009, although the Implementing Act, on the basis of which the status could be granted, was in force since 2006.

b)     What are the contradicting arguments represented by the different sides in this legal problem?

On one side there are arguments of the Ministry of the Environment claiming that the conditions for the status are not too strict and were actually made easier with the last amendment to EPA. Under these changes the ministry refunds 50% of the costs for the financial audit if NGO gets the status granted. 

On the other side there are NGOs claiming that despite this last amendment the conditions are still too strict. Furthermore, several NGOs submitted an application more than a year ago and still have not got any response from the Ministry, even though the General Administrative Procedure Act states that the decision in such procedures should be issued not later than in 30 days.

c)    What international law, EU law or national law is invoked by the different sides in the legal problem?

Both sides are referring to the Aarhus Convention (AC). The Ministry claims that Slovenia is in compliance with the Convention, since the AC does not determine specifically, which conditions NGOs have to fulfill in order to gain a status to act in public interest and leaves the conditions to be set by the country itself.

NGOs claim that Slovenia is not in compliance with AC because of strict conditions and slow responses from the Ministry of the Environment. Without a status of NGOs acting in public interest they do not have access to justice.

II.                 The cases

a)      What cases illustrate the existence of the aforementioned legal problem?

The case of DOPPS-Birdlife Slovenia, in which NGO wanted to gain status of an accessory participant in the procedure of issuance of an environmental permit for the construction of a wind farm. Because of the conflict between EPA and Environmental Conservation Act the case lasted for four years and eventually after an appeal to MoE in a 2nd instance administrative procedure DOPPS finally got the status of the party in this procedure.

Another more recent case is the case of Friends of the Earth Slovenia, which sent a notice before before filing a lasuit to the Ministry, where they requested that a status of NGO acting in public interest should be granted[1] to them. After 10 days they got a response from the Ministry that they have to complete their application in order to get the status. FoE finally got the status in September 2009, more than a year after they submitted their application, even though general Administrative Procedure Act states that the decision in such procedures should be issued not later than in 30days.   

b)     What environmental problems are the backgrounds of the legal disputes in the cases?

In both described cases there are no disputes about specific environmental problems, since the problems described are more procedural, referring to lack of implementation of AC.

c)     What were the final decisions in the cases?

As described above.

III.               The recommendations

a)      Do you agree with the final decisions in the cases?

We agree with the final decision made by the administrative court. In June 2006 the court finally ruled in favour of DOPPS (BirdLife Slovenia) in the case vs. MoE (wind farm Volovja reber case). The ruling was that associations can gain status of an accessory participant not only on the basis of provisions set in Nature Conservation Act (NCA), but also on the basis of provisions set in Environmental Protection Act (EPA). The grounds of the judgment clarified that the status gained in accordance to one act does not exclude the status gained in accordance to the other act[2].

b)      What in your opinion would be the correct decision in the cases?

The decision in our opinion was completely correct.

c)   What recommendations do you have for the solution of the basic legal problem?

here is a raising question whether a complaint to the Aarhus compliance committee should be submitted, because of the strict conditions set by EPA. In order to gain a status of acting in public interest NGOs have to fulfill very strict standing conditions which could mean non-compliance with AC.

On the basis of the ruling in the Birdlife case we recommend NGOs to argue MoE decision if they are excluded from the procedure on the basis that they have a status according to Nature Conservation Act and want to gain status according to Environmental Protection Act. Because having one status does not exclude NGOs to gain a status on the basis of another environmental act.

Changes to EPA should be done and the conditions to gain the status should be made less strict, enabling more environmental NGOs to act in favour of the environment.

We recommend to the authorities to respect the ruling made in the Birdlife case and in any other similar cases enable or approve the status of acting as accessory participant to NGO on the basis of EPA or NCA. Only with this kind of practice NGOs will have an opportunity to participate in environmental procedures that affect the environment.

This publication was sponsored by the European Commission – LIFE+ programme. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and  the Environment of the Netherlands

 
DOSTOP DO SODNEGA VARSTVA
 

Dostop do sodnega varstva

SLOVENIJA

Namen tega besedila je za uporabnike pravic do sodnega varstva (javnost in nevladne organizacije) zagotoviti instrument, ki povzema pridobljene izkušnje partnerskih organizacij Justice and Environment-a.

I.    Pravni problem

a)      Kaj je najbolj značilen pravni problem, ki se nanaša na dostop do sodnega varstva na področju okolja v naši državi?

Najbolj značilen pravni problem, ki se nanaša na dostop do sodnega varstva na področju okolja v Sloveniji je problem pravnega položaja okoljskih nevladnih organizacij. Na podlagi določil Zakona o varstvu okolja (ZVO) imajo status stranskega udeleženca v okoljskih postopkih prebivalci ali lastniki nepremičnin na vplivnem območju in nevladne organizacije (NVO), če imajo priznan status delovanja na področju varstva okolja. Navedeni status pa NVO pridobijo le, če izpolnjujejo zelo stroge zahteve, ki jih določa ZVO (npr. število zaposlenih, najmanj 5 let delovanja na področju varstva okolja, finančna revizija) in ki skorajda onemogočajo pridobitev navedenega statusa.

Poleg tega je Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor začelo izdajati odločbe, s katerimi se navedeni status dodeli, šele v letu 2009, čeprav je podzakonski akt, na podlagi katerega se status podeljuje v veljavi že od leta 2006.

b)      Kakšni so argumenti, ki jih zagovarjajo različni zagovorniki predstavljenega pravnega problema?

Na eni strani so argumenti ministrstva, katerega predstavniki zagovarjajo dejstvo, da pogoji za dodelitev statusa niso preveč strogi in so bili celo omiljeni z eno izmed zadnjih sprememb ZVO. Na podlagi navedenih sprememb namreč ministrstvo NVO, kateri je bil status delovanja na področju okolja odobren povrne 50% stroškov, ki jih je NVO imela s pripravo finančne revizije. 

Na drugi strani pa so argumenti NVO, ki trdijo, da so ne glede na zadnjo spremembo zakona, pogoji za pridobitev statusa še vedno prestrogi. Poleg tega so nekatere NVO zahtevo za podelitev statusa na ministrstvo vložile že pred več kot enim letom in še vedno niso dobile nobenega odgovora s strani ministrstva, kljub temu da Zakon o splošnem upravnem postopku določa, da je potrebno odločitev v takšnih primerih sprejeti v roku 30 dni.

c)      Na določbe katerega mednarodnega, evropskega ali nacionalnega prava se sklicujejo predstavniki, ki zagovarjajo nasprotujoče si argument?

Obe strani se sklicujeta na Aarhuško konvencijo. Ministrstvo zagovarja dejstvo, da Slovenija deluje skladno z določili konvencije, saj naj konvencija ne bi natančneje določala, katere pogoje morajo NVO izpolnjevati, da jim država dodeli status delovanja na področju okolja, razen pogojev, ki jih določa sama zakonodaja posamezne države podpisnice.

Nevladne organizacije pa zagovarjajo dejstvo, da Slovenija ne deluje skladno z določili konvencije ravno zaradi strogosti pogojev za dodelitev statusa ter počasnega odzivanja ministrstva na vloge za dodelitev statusa. Brez statusa pa okoljske nevladne organizacije v upravnih postopkih nimajo dostopa do sodnega varstva na področju okolja.

II.                 Primer

a)      Kateri primer opisuje omenjeni pravni problem?

Navedeni pravni problem opisuje primer DOPPS-Birdlife Slovenija, v okviru katerega je omenjena NVO želela pridobiti položaj stranskega udeleženca v postopku izdaje okoljevarstvenega soglasja za vetrno elektrarno na Volovji rebri. Zaradi "konflikta" oziroma neusklajenosti določb Zakona o ohranjanju narave ter Zakona o varstvu okolja se je problematika navedenega primera vlekla štiri leta in šele na podlagi pritožbe na Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor v okviru drugostopenjskega upravnega postopka, je DOPPS uspel pridobiti položaj stranskega udeleženca v navedenem postopku.

Poleg tega velja omeniti še drug primer, ki je neposredno povezan s pridobitvijo statusa delovanja NVO v javnem interesu na področju okolja. Društvo Focus je po skoraj enem letu od vložitve vloge Ministrstvu za okolje in prostor poslalo opomin pred tožbo, v okviru katerega so zahtevali dodelitev statusa delovanja NVO na področju okolja. V 10 dneh so dobili odgovor, da morajo svojo vlogo dopolniti, če želijo zaprošeni status dobiti. Šele ko so svojo vlogo dopolnili, jim je ministrstvo septembra 2009, več kot leto dni po vložitvi prve vloge, dodelilo status NVO, ki deluje v javnem interesu na področju okolja, kljub temu da Zakon o splošnem upravnem postopku jasno določa, da je potrebno odločitev v takšnih primerih sprejeti v roku 30 dni.

b)     Kakšni okoljski problemi so v ozadju pravnih sporov v opisanih primerih?

V obeh opisanih primerih neposredno v ospredju ni okoljski problem, saj se nastale težave nanašajo predvsem na procesne pomanjkljivosti, ki so nastale zaradi slabe implementacije Aarhuške konvencije.  

c)      Kakšne so bile končne odločitve v opisanih primerih?

Glej pojasnila pod točko II a) in b).

III.               Priporočila

a)      Ali se strinjate s končno odločitvijo v opisanih primerih?

Strinjamo se s končno odločitvijo, ki jo je v primeru DOPPSa sprejelo upravno sodišče, saj je na podlagi njegove odločitve navedena NVO končno dobila priznan status stranskega udeleženca v postopku. Končna odločitev sodišča je bila, da lahko društva pridobijo položaj stranskega udeleženca ne samo na podlagi določil Zakona o ohranjanju narave, ampak tudi na podlagi določil Zakona o varstvu okolja. V obrazložitvi sodbe je bilo pojasnjeno, da pridobitev položaja stranskega udeleženca na podlagi določil enega zakona ne izključuje možnosti pridobitve navedenega položaja na podlagi določil drugega zakona.

b)      Kakšna bi bila po vašem mnenju pravilna odločitev sodišča?

Po našem mnenju je bila odločitev sodišča pravilna.

c)      Kakšna so vaša priporočila za rešitev opisanega pravnega problema?

Ob vsem navedenem obstaja vprašanje smiselnosti vložitve pritožbe na t.i. Aarhuški pritožbeni komite (eng. Aarhus compliance committee), saj morajo NVO za pridobitev statusa NVO organizacije, ki deluje v javnem interesu na področju okolja izpolnjevati zelo stroge pogoje, ki jih določa slovenska zakonodaja in ki bi lahko pomenili neskladnost z Aarhuško konvencijo.

Na podlagi odločitve upravnega sodišča v primeru DOPPS svetujemo NVO, da se v primeru negativne odločbe o dodelitvi položaja stranskega udeleženca na podlagi ZON sklicujejo na navedeno odločitev sodišča v primeru DOPPS, saj naj status dodeljen na podlagi enega zakona, ne bi izključeval možnosti pridobitve statusa na podlagi drugega zakona.

Poleg tega bi morale biti sprejete tudi spremembe Zakona o varstvu okolja, ki bi omilile zahteve, ki jih morajo izpolniti okoljske NVO, če želijo pridobiti status delovanja v javnem interesu na področju okolja.

Oblastnim organom svetujemo, da v morebitnih novih primerih spoštujejo odločitev upravnega sodišča v primeru DOPPS in tako dodelijo status stranskega udeleženca tako na podlagi določil ZVO, kot tudi ZON. Samo v primeru takšnega ravnanja bodo imele okoljske NVO dejansko možnost sodelovati v okoljskih postopkih, ki imajo lahko negativen vpliv na okolje.

 

This publication was sponsored by the European Commission – LIFE+ programme. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and  the Environment of the Netherlands

 

 
<< Začni < Nazaj 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Naprej > Konec >>

Rezultati 1 - 5 od 38

Kontakt

Pravno-informacijski center nevladnih organizacij - PIC
Metelkova 6 - nasproti hostla Celica,
1000 Ljubljana
tel.: +386 1 521 18 88
mobi: +386 51 681 181
fax: +386 1 540 19 13
email: E-poštni naslov je zavarovan pred nezaželeno pošto, za ogled potrebujete Javascript


Naročanje na odplačno pravno svetovanje:
9:00 - 14:00


 

 

www.pic.si