Citizens of North Macedonia can sue the state because of polluted air

Citizens in North Macedonia, in the procedure before the Administrative Court, can request that the competent bodies be obliged to approve all the documents required by the Law on Ambient Air Quality and sue them in an administrative procedure if their health is endangered.

This is what the Supreme Court decided in a public session, during the week, where the judges discussed the initiative presented by the Association of Lawyers from Ohrid, whether or not the state provides conditions for realizing the right of citizens to a healthy environment.

In the principle decision, it is stated that "in accordance with national and international regulations, the state is obliged to provide a healthy environment, including the right to clean air, as an individual right of citizens, who as parties to administrative proceedings may request that the competent bodies are obliged to approve the basic planning documents from Article 23 of the Law on Ambient Air Quality, as general acts".

"For the realization of the right to a healthy environment, the provisions of the Law on Administrative Disputes are applied, which ensure judicial protection from illegal acts and actions, which violate the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, when this concrete judicial protection is not provided by the Constitution and other laws", states the principle position.

This position of the Supreme Court was taken after the Administrative Court has several times rejected the lawsuits of the citizens that North Macedonia does not take measures to protect the environment. With this principled position, the Administrative Court is tasked to act differently from the current practice.

The initiative before the Supreme Court for the determination of the principle legal opinion in 2023 was presented by the Association of Advocates "Goxho Kiçeec and Novakovski" from Ohrid.

Even before, there were lawsuits from citizens who were rejected several times by the Administrative Court, which was declared incompetent, so that the case ended up in the Supreme Court.

Ademi: A healthy environment is an obligation of the state

Before the approval of the principled legal opinion, the president of the Supreme Court, Besa Ademi, emphasized that access to a healthy environment is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the state Constitution and is related to the improvement of citizens' health.

"Everyone is obliged to improve and protect the environment and nature. The duty of the state is to provide citizens with a healthy environment. In the Law on the environment, measures and activities for the protection and improvement of the environment are defined as public interest. The legislator has provided judicial protection for the right guaranteed by the Constitution", Ademi stressed.

The professor of the Faculty of Law, Borçe Davitkovski, said that the judicial power should be the corrective of the executive power. He, referring to statistics, said that out of 10 babies born, one dies because of polluted air.

"Even at the 'Kirili and Metodi' University (UKIM), on the campus, we had a pollution meter and it no longer works. Institutions are obliged to provide citizens with accurate and timely data on the air in the environment where they live. So that everyone can claim their right. This is not respected even though it is part of our legislation", said Davitkovski.

He appreciates that public bodies do not want to be held accountable for this constitutional protection of citizens' human rights. Moreover, he said that if the data of the Institute of Public Health are taken into account that up to 5.000 citizens die annually from polluted air, this means that over the past 30 years, one tenth of the inhabitants of Macedonia North have lost their lives and no one has reacted or given responsibility for this.

"I think that in this way, if the court enters the dispute, because it is a question of a public interest, the court will act both preventively and punitively to oblige the public bodies that someone is accountable for the citizens, because it is not they have other judicial protection and they should put public bodies that did not act according to their competences to the pillar of shame", explained Davitkovski.

Official data from state monitoring every year show that cities such as Skopje, Bitola and Tetova have high concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 particles, especially during the winter months.

According to the data presented by the president of the Supreme Court, Besa Ademi, obtained from the courts where procedures for criminal offenses against the environment have been developed, in the last four years the courts have given 242 final decisions, with which 280 people have been sentenced . Penalties include fines, imprisonment or alternative sanctions. Most of the criminal offenses were committed on purpose, while some were committed carelessly, said Ademi.

Caused by the decision of the European Court against Switzerland

The lawsuit in the Administrative Court of the Association of Advocates from Ohrid was filed according to the example of some Swiss citizens, who sued the state before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for violating the laws and not protecting citizens from the effects of climate change. .

In April of this year, the highest European Court ruled in their favor, finding that Switzerland does not slow down the impact of global warming.

At the time, world media reported that this is the first time an international court has found that governments are legally bound to meet their climate targets in accordance with human rights laws.

The European Court ruled that Switzerland has "critical deficiencies" in its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and emphasized that the country has not met its emissions targets.

"Swiss authorities did not act in time and properly to design and implement the relevant laws," the court said in its decision on April 9 of this year.