(NEKI) SUDOVI TRAŽE NOVE PRISTUPE I PRINCIPE ZAŠTITE ŽIVOTNE SREDINE I PRIRODE

  • Rajko Knez Ustavni sud Republike Slovenije

Sažetak


Abstract: Environmental degradation is escalating at a pace that is outpacing the capacity of traditional legal responses. Drawing on recent jurisprudence, this paper argues that courts are beginning to bridge the gap left by hesitant legislatures and executives by importing soft-law norms, reviving the precautionary principle, and embracing intergenerational responsibility. Administrative law thus becomes a frontline instrument: buffer zones around drinking-water sources, for instance, now hinge on future rather than present risk. By contrast, criminal law remains shackled to “blanket” norms that condition liability on the breach of narrowly framed environmental regulations, leaving serious violations, such as pollution caused by a traffic accident, outside its reach. The author contends that without a results-oriented reinterpretation of environmental crimes, the promise of Directive 2008/99/EC and its 2024 successor will remain unfulfilled. Only a coordinated evolution of administrative, private, and criminal mechanisms can restore the law’s deterrent force and safeguard environmental integrity for future generations.

Reference

Bottoms, A. E., & Wiles, P. (1997). Environmental Criminology. In: M. Maguire, R.
Moran, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 620-656.
Bučar Ručman, A. (2009). Environmental crime through the optics of green criminology.
Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 60(2). 118–130.
Florjančič, D. (2010). Nujna uskladitev KZ-1 z Direktivo o kazenskopravnem varstvu
okolja. Pravna praksa, 45(10), 12-14.
Juhart, M (2008). Okoljska odgovornost – med javnim in zasebnim pravom. Zbornik
znanstvenih razprav Pravne fakultete v Ljubljani. LXVIII/2008, 107–127.
Klenovšek, Ana & Mesko, Gorazd. (2011). Criminological aspects of the international
waste trade. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo. 62(1), 50-63.
Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassunsgericht) no. 1
BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 288/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR
78/20 of March 24, 2021.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU C-176/03, ZOdl. 2005, I-7879
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Criminal Division, I Ips
96/2000 of April 16, 2003.
Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc. of May 26, 2021,
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5337.
Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands,
ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006.
Tătar v. Roumanie, (App. No. 67021/01) March 17, 2009.
Criminal Code KZ-1, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, 91/2011, 50/2012,
54/15, 6/16, 38/16, 27/17, 23/20, 91/20, 95/21, 186/21, and 16/23.
Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November
2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
Directive 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024
on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directives
2008/99/ EC and 2009/123/ EC.
Environmental Protection Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 32/93,
44/95, 1-5/96, 56/99, 22/2000, and 67/2000.
https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/milieudefensie-et-al-v-royal-dutch-shell-plc/
(accessed on November 4, 2024)
https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/
(accessed on November 4, 2024)
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/earth-exceed-safe-limits-first-planetary-
health-check-issues-red-alert (Accessed on November 4, 2024)
Objavljeno
2025/06/13
Rubrika
Prikaz naučnog ili stručnog skupa