The National Prosecutor’s Office reports that it has submitted to the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw a position seeking the dismissal of environmental organizations’ complaints against the decision of the General Director for Environmental Protection dated 30 September 2022 concerning the operation of the “Turów” lignite mine.
Investigators:
The Turów case has many facets, while public attention has so far focused on the intergovernmental dispute, whose high-profile manifestation was the proceedings before the CJEU, ultimately ended when the Czech Republic withdrew its complaint against Poland. Another important issue was the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw’s order suspending implementation of the environmental decision for Turów, which was overturned by the Supreme Administrative Court in July this year.
And they emphasize:
The future of Turów remains unresolved, however, because environmental organizations are challenging the substance of the General Director for Environmental Protection’s environmental decision of 30 September 2022. They filed complaints against the decision with the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw. If the complaints were upheld, coal extraction at Turów could once again be suspended.
Complaints with the Provincial Administrative Court were filed by Die Große Kreisstadt, Fundacja Greenpeace Polska, Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczne EKO-UNIA, Stowarzyszenie Greenpeace Česka Republika, Horst Schiermayer, Greenpeace e.V. based in Hamburg, and Fundacja Frank Bold. The allegations raised by these organizations primarily concern the investor’s environmental impact report, which formed the basis for the decision issued by the General Directorate for Environmental Protection.
Prosecutor’s Office Seeks Dismissal of Environmentalists’ Complaints
The National Prosecutor’s Office submitted to the Provincial Administrative Court a position seeking dismissal of the complaints on the grounds that “the content of the environmental authority’s decision complies with applicable law.” In the National Prosecutor’s Office’s assessment, the allegations against the mine investor’s environmental report are unfounded: – Contrary to the complainants’ assertions, the General Director for Environmental Protection correctly deemed the report evidence that extraction at Turów can continue in accordance with the applicable legal framework.
The investigators add:
In its position, the prosecutor indicated that the report had been prepared with the participation of many experts—highly regarded specialists in their respective fields. Several of them took part in procedural activities involving the German and Czech parties. The unified version of the report was produced as a result of comments and requests submitted by the parties and the public, as well as during cross-border consultations. It should be emphasized that the report is not only compliant with the law; the resulting guidelines on monitoring and protective measures even go beyond the requirements arising from the regulations.
The prosecutor found that the General Directorate for Environmental Protection correctly assumed that since the environmental organizations claimed there was a connection between Turów’s operations and negative phenomena, such as the poor condition of buildings in Zittau, they bore the burden of proving that connection. The organizations presented no evidence in this regard, and they also failed to address the fact that the condition of buildings in Zittau had been affected by the operations of the former Olbersdorf mines and by mining in the city itself.
The investigators also report:
The prosecutor disagreed with the complainants that the principle of two-instance proceedings had been violated because the General Directorate for Environmental Protection had not revoked the earlier decision of the Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection. Under the Administrative Procedure Code, such revocation and referral of the case for reconsideration may take place when the first-instance authority proceeded in violation of the regulations and the scope of the matter requiring clarification has a significant impact on its resolution.
That is not the situation here, however, because the changes made by the General Directorate for Environmental Protection to the Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection’s decision were merely clarifying in nature and did not alter its substance.
And they add:
The position also addressed the Turów mine’s role in the national energy security system. As the prosecutor emphasized, the Turów Power Plant is in practice dependent on this mine. Electricity from Turów serves as a stabilizer for the national energy system, and it currently cannot be fully replaced by renewable sources, as the complainants had suggested.
The evidence gathered in the case shows that the investor implemented solutions minimizing the mine’s environmental impact. This also concerns its impact on surface and groundwater. Importantly, the investor also correctly assessed the risk of so-called cumulative impacts, taking into account the nearby power plant, the so-called external spoil heap, and the gypsum storage facility, all of which adjoin the mine.
The resolution of this case will be important for deciding the currently suspended case concerning the mine’s concession.