Supreme Court to rule next month on bird nesting protection case
The Supreme Court has heard a dispute between two logging firms and the state Environmental Board, over the protection of bird nesting sites.
The case is also being heard in the light of EU precedent.
The dispute is between private sector firms OÜ Voore Mets and AS Lemeks on the one side, and the Environmental Board (Keskonnaamet) on the other, over when clear and thinning cuts may be temporarily banned to protect nesting birds.
The felling took place on privately owned land.
The hearing also follows an August European Court of Justice (ECJ) preliminary ruling which stated EU law allows logging operations to be suspended in order to avoid harm to nesting birds, even in the case of species which are not under protection.
The ECJ also clarified that under the EU's Birds Directive, activities are prohibited including when their purpose is not to kill or harm birds or destroy their nesting grounds, but when such consequences are inevitable.
OÜ Voore Mets and AS Lemeks started forest work in the spring of 2021 after receiving a logging permit from the Environmental Board. However, in May this year, the board ordered the work to be halted until mid-summer, citing the need to protect nesting birds.
The board said there had been a change in practice, also in spring 2021, whereby supervision was intensified to ensure the protection of birds during the nesting season.
The two companies were aware of this change, the board said.
Environmental Board lawyer Eveli Misnik said the main issue at the hearing was how to define intent.
"The discussion about the need to protect birds during the nesting season goes back much further than 2021. The most important question at today's hearing is where the boundaries lie — how we can define intent in the future, whether there is a threshold for it or not," Misnik said.
OÜ Voore Mets and AS Lemeks are arguing that the practice changed arbitrarily and without informing the parties involved.
OÜ Voore Mets's representative, sworn advocate Indre Veso, said his client did not set out to deliberately destroy bird nests.
"My client did not knowingly or intentionally destroy birds or their nests, and therefore this cannot be considered an intentional action. Moreover, intentional action in killing or disturbing birds presupposes that I see and perceive the bird or the nest," Veso said.
The Supreme Court is to issue its decision in the matter later this year.
--
Editor: Andrew Whyte, Jane Saluorg, Valner Väino
Source: 'Aktuaalne kaamera'
