analiza sudskih odluka iz oblasti -...

Analiza sudskih odluka iz oblasti zaštite okoliša u Bosni i Hercegovini

u 2012. godini

Autori:Mirna Delalić

Ratko PilipovićDamir Petrović

Svako mišljenje ili izjava objavljeni u ovoj publikaciji, a za koje nije izričito naznačeno da potiču iz Misije OSCE-a u Bosni i Hercegovini, ne odražavaju zvaničnu politiku Misije OSCE-a u Bosni i Hercegovini.Misija OSCE-a u Bosni i Hercegovini podržala je štampanje ovog materijala.Ovaj izvještaj pripremljen je uz tehničku i administrativnu podršku u sklopu projekta „Unaprijeđenje vladavine prava kroz poboljšan pristup pravosuđu u okolišnim pitanjima“, kojeg je finansirala Vlada Njemačke, uz učešće Inicijative za okoliš i sigurnost.

Predgovor

Potreba za detaljnijom analizom sudskih odluka u oblasti zaštite okoliša ukazala se već tokom pripreme nacionalnih izvještaja o provedbi Aarhuske konvencije u BiH, te pri organizaciji edukativnih seminara za sudije i tužioce o okolišnom pravu EU i Aarhuskoj konvenciji. Iako prva ovakve vrste u Bosni i Hercegovini, ova analiza ne može se smatrati iscrpnim uvidom u ovu oblast sudske prakse zbog nedostataka cjelovitih podataka iz sudova i tužilaštava, cilj je da ovaj dokument potakne širu diskusiju o zaštiti okoliša sa upravnog, krivičnog i prekršajnog aspekta. Nadamo se da će ovaj dokument poslužiti i Centrima za edukaciju sudija i tužilaca kao referentni materijal za relevantnu profesionalnu edukaciju. Zahvaljujemo se Odjelu za pravosudnu upravu Visokog sudskog i tužilačkog vijeća BiH te mreži Aarhus centara na pomoći u pripremi ovog dokumenta.

Projektni tim

Analiza sudskih odluka iz oblasti zaštite okoliša u Bosni i Hercegovini u 2012. godini 5

SADRŽAJ

UVOD ...................................................................................................................................................71. DRŽAVNO UREĐENJE I INSTITUCIONALNI OKVIR BiH SA ASPEKTA ZAŠTITE OKOLIŠA...................92. PRAVNA I SUDSKA ZAŠTITA OKOLIŠA .................................................................................................13

2.1. Upravno-pravna zaštita okoliša sa aspekta prava predviđenih Arhuskom konvencijom ..................132.1.1. Pravo na pristup informacijama ..........................................................................................13

2.1.1.1. Obaveza postupanja javnog organa po zahtjevu za pristup informacijama .........142.1.1.2. Izuzeci od obaveze dostavljanja informacija ........................................................14

a) Izuzetak od objavljivanja u vezi sa funkcijama javnih organa ..............................14b) Izuzetak od objavljivanja u vezi sa povjerljivim komercijalnim informacijama ......17c) Izuzetak od objavljivanja informacija kod zaštite privatnosti ................................17

2.1.1.3. Obaveza ispitivanja javnog interesa .....................................................................182.1.2. Pravo na učešće javnosti u donošenju odluka ...................................................................182.1.3. Pravo na „pristup pravdi“ ....................................................................................................192.1.4. Zaključak ............................................................................................................................21

2.2. Krivično-pravna zaštita okoliša u BiH ...............................................................................................21a) Krivična djela protiv okoliša u BiH ....................................................................................................22b) Osnove krivičnog postupka u BiH .....................................................................................................23

2.2.1. Analiza učinkovitosti zaštite okoliša u BiH putem krivično-pravne zaštite u 2012. godini ..24a) Sveobuhvatna učinkovitost rada nadležnih tužilaštava u pogledu krivičnih djela protiv

okoliša ................................................................................................................................25b) Raznovrsnost krivičnih djela protiv okoliša u BiH po potvrđenim optužnicama ..................26c) Vrste izrečenih krivično-pravnih sankcija u okončanim predmetima po krivičnim djelima

protiv okoliša u BiH .............................................................................................................272.2.2. Zaključak ............................................................................................................................27

2.3. Prekršajno-pravna zaštita okoliša u BiH u 2012. godini ...................................................................28a) Osnove prekršajnog postupka ..........................................................................................................29

2.3.1. Analiza prekršajno-pravne zaštite okoliša u BiH ...............................................................302.3.2. Zaključak ...........................................................................................................................31

Literatura .................................................................................................................................................32PRILOG 1 .................................................................................................................................................33


UVOD

Okoliš kao prirodno okruženje koje obuhvaća zrak, vodu, tlo, biljni i životinjski svijet, klimu, ukupnost uzajamnog djelovanja i kulturnu baštinu kao dio okruženja kojeg je stvorio čovjek, podrazumijevajući pri tome gradove i druga naselja, infrastrukturne, industrijske i druge objekte, zahtijeva posebnu zaštitu kako na međunarodnom, tako i na državnom i lokalnom nivou. Naime, zaštita okoliša i njegovo unapređenje su jedan od najznačajnijih problema sa kojima se suočava savremeno društvo. Ubrzan naučno-tehnološki razvoj, primjena novih i moćnih izvora energije, izgradnja velikog broja industrijskih objekata, stvaranje velikih urbanih sredina, doveli su, posebno posljednjih decenija, do izraženog nivoa zagađenosti osnovnih prirodnih resursa živog svijeta, narušavanja harmonije između čovjeka iživotnog okruženja, ozbiljnog ugrožavanja prirodnih uslova, neophodnih za očuvanje okoliša, što konačno dovodi u pitanje i sam opstanak čovjeka i planete Zemlje kakvu poznajemo. Upravo iz ovih razloga se značaj zaštite okoliša nameće kao izazov svakog društva i države, što podrazumijeva kako međunarodnu zajednicu, tako i pojedine države, pa i Bosnu i Hercegovinu (u daljem tekstu: BiH).

Ujedinjene nacije (u daljem tekstu: UN), Evropska Unija (u daljem tekstu: EU) i Vijeće Evrope su donijeli niz akata koji se odnose na zaštitu okoliša, među kojima je i Konvencija UN-a o pristupu informacijama, učešću javnosti u odlučivanju i pristupu pravosuđu u pitanjima okoliša, tzv. Arhuska konvencija, koja predstavlja jedan od osnovnih pravnih instrumenata u borbi pojedinca, ali i cjelokupne javnosti za očuvanje zdravog okoliša. Značaj prava predviđenih Arhuskom konvencijom se ogleda upravo u činjenjici da je pristup informacijama srž ostvarivanja svakog prava, pa tako i zaštite okoliša, jer samo informiran čovjek može adekvatno reagirati u svakoj životnoj situaciji. BiH je potpisnica većine međunarodnih dokumenata koji se tiču zaštite okoliša, a Arhuskoj konvenciji je pristupila 15.09.2008. godine,1 usljed čega je BiH stekla obavezu postupanja u skladu sa odredbama ove konvencije. Pored toga, odredbe Arhuske konvencije su većim dijelom sadržane i u domaćem zakonodavstvu i to u zakonima o zaštiti okoliša, odnosno životne sredine.2

Na nivou EU je bitno ukazati na okolišni acquis communtaire3 u okviru kojeg su donesene brojne direktive, uredbe i odluke kojima se regulira zaštita pojedinih oblasti okoliša,4 a koje su sve usaglašene sa Arhuskom konvencijom. Značaj pravnih propisa i cjelokupnog acquis communtarie za BiH leži u činjenici da jedinstvena obaveza članstva u EU podrazumijeva da sve države koje žele da se pridruže EU moraju da usklade svoje nacionalne propise, pravila i procedure kako bi se postigao efekat u čitavom korpusu propisa sadržanih u acquis communtaire. BiH kao država koja želi postati članicom EU je 26.06.2008. godine u Luksemburgu potpisala Sporazum o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju između Evropske Unije i njenih članica (u daljem tekstu: Sporazum), a koji je ratificiran od strane Predsjedništva BiH 06.11.2008. godine.5 Ovime je BiH stekla status tzv. „potencijalne kandidatkinje“. Iako Sporazum još uvijek nije stupio na snagu, obzirom da EU od BiH očekuje ispunjenje dodatnih uslova,6 obaveza usklađivanja pravnih propisa predviđena članom 70. Sporazuma je ipak na snazi od dana njegova potpisivanja.

1 „Službeni glasnik BiH – MU“, broj: 8/08.2 Zakon o zaštiti okoliša FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 33/03 i 38/09); Zakon o zaštiti životne sredine RS (Sl. glasnik RS“, broj:

71/12); i Zakon o zaštiti životne sredine BD BiH („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, broj: 24/04, 1/05, 19/07, i 09/09).3 Pravna stečevina EU, odnosno skup prava i obaveza koje sve države članice obavezuju i povezuju unutar EU. U formalnom

smislu acquis uključuje: tzv. primarno pravo (osnivački ugovori); međunarodni ugovori, međunarodno običajno pravo i opći pravni principi EU; zatim sekundarno pravo, tj. zakonodavstvo koje donose institucije EU (Pravila, Direktivne i Odluke); Praksa Suda pravde Evropske unije; sve druge obaveze preuzete od država članica u okviru aktivnosti EU.

4 Na niovu horizontalnog sektora – pravila koja su primjenjiva na sve ostale sektore, do danas je doneseno ukupno 7 direktirva. U oblasti kvalitete zraka – 8 direktiva i 1 uredba; u oblasti upravljanja otpadom – 12 direktiva i 1 uredba; oblasti kvaliteta voda – 18 direktiva; zaštite prirode – 3 direktive i 2 uredbe; industrijskog zagađenja – 9 direktiva i 3 uredbe; hemikalija – 5 direktiva i 3 uredbe; buke – 3 direktive, te u oblasti EU sistema trgovine emisijama – 6 odluka, 4 direktive i 4 uredbe.

5 „Službeni glasnik BiH – MU“, broj: 10/08.6 Ispunjenje obaveza po presudi Evropskog suda za ljudska prava u predmetu Sejdić i Finci protiv Bosne i Hercegovine.

8

Prema tome, rok za usklađivanje propisa BiH sa acquis EU je počeo da teče 2008. godine, a do 2014. godine usklađivanje će se proširiti na sve elemente acquis-a, uključujući i okoliš. S tim u vezi treba posebno istaći direktive sa kojima se mora uskladiti zakonodavstvo BiH, a koje se odnose na pitanja zaštite okoliša i to Direktiva 2003/4/EZ o javnom pristupu informacijama o okolišu,7 zatim Direktiva 2003/35/EZ o osiguranju sudjelovanja javnosti u izradi određenih planova i programa koji se odnose na okoliš,8 Direktiva 2008/99/EZ o zaštiti okoliša putem krivičnog prava,9 te odredbe o kaznama sadržane u raznim drugim direktivama.

Imajući u vidu prethodno navedeno, posebno činjenicu da je BiH potpisnica brojnih međunarodnih konvencija koje se tiču zaštite okoliša, jasno je da upravo pravo na zdrav okoliš čini ustavnu kategoriju u BiH, i to uprkos tome što Ustav BiH direktno ne regulira ovo pravo. Zapravo, Ustavom BiH je kao osnovno ljudsko pravo utvrđeno pravo na život koje u sebi sadrži i podrazumijeva i pravo na zdrav okoliš. Apsolutno identična situacija je i na nivou Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine (u daljem tekstu: FBiH), odnosno njenih kantona, pri čemu je Republika Srpska (u daljem tekstu: RS) ovo pitanje regulirala zasebno u svom Ustavu, i to na način da je predvidjela odredbu prema kojoj „čovjek ima pravo na zdravu životnu sredinu. Svako je, u skladu sa zakonom, dužan da u okviru svojih mogućnosti štiti i unapređuje životnu sredinu“.10

7 Direktiva (2003/4/EZ) Evropskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 28.01.2003. godine o javnom pristupu informacijama o okolišu i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive Vijeća 90/313/EEZ (SL L 41, 14.02.2003).

8 Direktiva (2003/35/EZ) Evropskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 26.05.2003. godine o osiguravanju sudjelovanja javnosti u izradi određenih planova i programa koji se odnose na okoliš i o izmjeni direktiva Vijeća 85/337/EEZ i 96/61/EZ s obzirom na sudjelovanje javnosti i pristup pravosuđu (SL L 156, 25.06.2003).

9 Direktiva (2008/99/EZ) Evropskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 19.11.2008. godine o zaštiti okoliša putem krivičnog prava (SL L 328, 06.12.2008).10 Ustav RS, član 35.


1. DRŽAVNO UREĐENJE I INSTITUCIONALNI OKVIR BiH SA ASPEKTA ZAŠTITE OKOLIŠA

Već površnim pogledom na problematiku zaštite okoliša vidljiva je složenost njena reguliranja u BiH, tako da je za bolje razumijevanje ove materije neophodno dati i kratak pregled državnog uređenja BiH, kao i institucija nadležnih za pitanja zaštite okoliša.

U BiH postoji više nivoa vlasti koji, iako imaju različita ustavna uređenja, ipak funkcioniraju u međusobnoj zavisnosti. Naime, na nivou BiH je ustanovljen državni nivo vlasti sa zasebnim zakonodavnim, izvršnim i sudskim organima, dok niži nivoi vlasti djeluju u okviru posebnih administrativnih jedinica, tzv. dva entiteta – FBiH i RS, te na nivou Brčko Distrikta Bosne i Hercegovine (u daljem tekstu: BD BiH). FBiH je, dalje, administrativno podijeljena na 10 kantona, što nije slučaj sa RS. Ipak, istovjetne su jedinice lokalne samouprave na nivou cijele BiH, a to su gradovi, općine/opštine i mjesne zajednice.

Zakonodavna tijela na svim nivoima vlasti su donijela opće pravne akte, odnosno zakone, kojima se detaljno uređuje pitanje zaštite okoliša, a čiji je pregled dat u Prilogu 1. ove analize.

Pored neophodnosti poznavanja zakonskog okvira zaštite okoliša, potrebno je imati i jasan pregled institucija BiH u čijoj nadležnosti je pitanje zaštite okoliša. Na Slici 1. dat je pregled institucija na državnom nivou BiH, dok su na Slici 2. prikazane institucije po entiteskim nivoima i na nivou BD BiH. S obzirom na uređenje FBiH i kantoni, kao zasebne administrativne jedinice, imaju institucije u čije nadležnosti ulazi pitanje zaštite okoliša. Odnosno, pojedina kantonalna ministarstva, njihova odjeljenja i odgovarajuće inspekcije, su nadležna za pitanja iz oblasti zaštite okoliša.11 Svakako, ovo je pitanje uređeno i na lokalnom nivou, pa tako i gradovi i općine u BiH imaju posebna odjeljenja u čijoj nadležnosti su pitanja zaštite okoliša, kao npr. službe za prostorno uređenje i zaštitu okoliša; službe za komunalne poslove; službe za inspekcijske poslove i sl.

11 Unsko-sanski kanton: Ministarstvo za građenje, prostorno uređenje i zaštitu okoliša; Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, vodoprivrede i šumarstva; Ministarstvo pravde; Ministarstvo privrede; Ministarstvo zdravstva i socijalne politike. Posavski kanton: Ministarstvo prometa, veze, turizma i zaštite okoliša; Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, vodoprivrede i šumarstva; Ministarstvo privrede i prostornog uređenja; Ministarstvo pravosuđa i uprave; Ministarstvo zdravstva, rada i socijalne politike. Tuzlanski kanton: Ministarstvo prostornog uređenja i zaštite okoliša; Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, vodoprivrede i šumarstva; Ministarstvo trgovine, turizma i saobraćaja; Ministarstvo industrije, energetike i rudarstva; Ministarstvo pravosuđa i uprave; Ministarstvo zdravstva. Zeničko-dobojski kanton: Ministarstvo za prostorno uređenje, saobraćaj i komunikacije i zaštitu okoliša; Ministarstvo za poljoprivredu, šumarstvo i vodoprivredu; Ministarstvo zdravstva; Ministarstvo za pravosuđe i upravu; Ministarstvo za privredu. Bosansko-podrinjski kanton: Ministarstvo za urbanizam, prostorno uređenje i zaštitu okoliša; Ministarstvo za socijalnu politiku, zdravstvo, raseljena lica i izbjeglice; Ministarstvo za pravosuđe, upravu i radne odnose; Ministarstvo za privredu. Srednjobosanski kanton: Ministarstvo šumarstva, vodoprivrede i poljoprivrede; Ministarstvo prostornog uređenja, obnove i povratka; Ministarstvo zdravstva i socijalne politike; Ministarstvo pravosuđa i uprave; Ministarstvo privrede. Hercegovačko-neretvanski kanton: Ministarstvo trgovine, turizma i zaštite okoliša; Ministarstvo saobraćaja i veza; Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, šumarstva i vodoprivrede; Ministarstvo građenja i prostornog uređenja; Ministarstvo zdravstva, rada i socijalne zaštite; Ministarstvo privrede. Zapadno-hercegovački kanton: Ministarstvo prostornog uređenja, građenja i zaštite okoliša; Ministarstvo zdravstva, rada i socijalne politike; Ministarstvo pravosuđa i uprave; Ministarstvo privrede. Kanton Sarajevo: Ministarstvo prostornog uređenja i zaštite okoliša; Ministarstvo prometa; Ministarstvo zdravstva; Ministarstvo pravde i uprave; Ministarstvo privrede. Kanton 10: Ministarstvo građevinarstva, obnove, prostornog uređenja i zaštite okoliša; Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, vodoprivrede i šumarstva; Ministarstvo rada, zdravstva, socijalne zaštite i prognanih; Ministarstvo pravosuđa i uprave; Ministarstvo privrede.

10

Slik

a 1

- Ins

tituc

ije n

a ni

vou

drža

ve B

iH n

adle

žne

za p

itanj

e za

štite

oko

liša


Slik

a 2

- Ins

tituc

ije n

a en

titet

skim

niv

oim

a i n

ivou

BD

BiH

nad

ležn

e za

pita

nje

zašt

ite o

koliš

a

12

Kako zakonodavna i izvršna–upravna vlast, tako je i sudska grana vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini zasebno ustanovljena na različitim nivoima, a s obzirom na složenost državnog uređenja BiH, i ona se znatno razlikuje u pojedinim administrativnim jedinicama i na državnom nivou. Šematski prikaz sudske vlasti u BiH je dat u Slici 3 .

Slika 3 – Pregled sudova u BiH nadležnih za pitanja zaštite okoliša


2. PRAVNA I SUDSKA ZAŠTITA OKOLIŠA

Ostvarivanje zaštite okoliša moguće je kroz razne vidove pravne zaštite, što podrazumijeva zaštitu u oblasti upravnog prava, posebno sa aspekta Arhuske konvencije i zakona o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine, zatim u oblasti krivičnog i prekršajnog prava, te zaštitu u oblasti građanskog prava. Usljed teškoća u pristupu pojedinim odlukama sudova iz ovih oblasti, u nastavku analize biti će prezentirana najznačajnija pravna pitanja iz oblasti upravno-pravne zaštite okoliša sa posebnim osvrtom na Arhusku konvenciju i zakone o slobodi pristupa informacija na državnom i entitetskim nivoima, sve to u smislu presuda nadležnih sudova donesenih u upravnim sporovima tokom 2012. godine. S obzirom na izuzetan značaj krivične i prekršajno-pravne zaštite okoliša u zasebnim poglavljima analize će biti prezentirana i najznačajnija pitanja iz ovih oblasti sa statističkim podacima odluka donesenih od strane nadležnih sudova BiH u 2012. godine.

U svrhu izrade ove analize uz pomoć Visokog sudskog i tužilačkog vijeća BiH, prikupljene su presude i podaci nadležnih sudova BiH u odnosu na relevantne tužbe u upravnim sporovima, te podaci o prijavama, istragama, optužnicama i presudama za 2012. godinu za krivična djela protiv okoliša.

2.1. Upravno-pravna zaštita okoliša sa aspekta prava predviđenih Arhuskom konvencijom

Upravno pravo je grana prava koja uređuje upravnu djelatnost, a obuhvaća opće pravne norme kojima se uređuju organizacija uprave, djelatnost uprave, nadzor nad radom uprave i režim dobara kojima se služe državni ili javni organi kako bi uprava mogla vršiti svoje zadatke.12 Sve institucije Bosne i Hercegovine, pa tako i one navedene prethodno u ovoj analizi koje su nadležne za pitanja zaštite okoliša, se imaju smatrati upravnim organima i obavezne su primjenjivati sve zakone kojima se regulira rad uprave.

Prethodno je već naglašen značaj Arhuske konvencije, kao i zakona o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine, obzirom da se njima osigurava pravo na pristup informacijama i pravo na učešće javnosti u donošenju odluka koje se tiču okoliša, kao i tzv. „pravo na pristup pravdi“, odnosno pravo na pravni lijek. Implementacije Arhuske konvencije u BiH je obavezna od dana njene ratifikacije, a pored zakona o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine ona se ostvaruje i kroz zakone o slobodi pristupa informacijama koji su doneseni u BiH.13

2.1.1. Pravo na pristup informacijama

Zakonima o slobodi pristupa informacijama se osigurava da svako lice ima pravo na pristup informacijama koje su pod kontrolom javnog organa u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri i to u skladu sa javnim interesom, obzirom da one predstavljaju javno dobro od vrijednosti i da javni pristup ovim informacijama promovira veću transparentnost i odgovornost javnih organa. Pri tome se zakonima o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine i Arhuskom konvencijom ovo pravo veže za informacije koje se tiču okoliša.

Javni organi, s druge strane, imaju obavezu, prvo, samoinicijativnog objavljivanja određenih informacija koje se tiču okoliša, a zatim i dostavljanja informacija po podnesenim zahtjevima za pristup informacijama, ukoliko se ne utvrdi jedan od izuzetaka na osnovu kojeg se može uskratiti pristup informacijama. Po ispitivanju svakog pojedinog slučaja, izuzetak od objavljivanja tražene informacije utvrđuje se samo u slučajevima kada nadležni organ utvrdi izuzetak u smislu izuzetaka decidno navedenih u zakonima o slobodi pristupa informacijama ili u zakonima o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine, zavisno od propisa koji se primjenjuje u konkretnom slučaju.

12 Pravni leksikon, Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, Zagreb, 2006., str. 1699.13 Zakon o slobodi pristupa informacijama u BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 28/00, 45/06, 102/09 i 62/11); Zakon o slobodi pristupa

informacijama FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 32/01 i 48/11); Zakon o slobodi pristupa informacijama RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 20/01).

14

Iz raspoloživih podataka i presuda prikupljenih za potrebe ove analize se može zaključiti da se cjelokupna sudska praksa u toku 2012. godine koja se odnosi na pravo na pristup informacijama, uključujući i pristup informacijama koje se tiču okoliša, odnosi na primjenu zakona o slobodi pristupa informacijama, što je u bitnome odredilo i fokus ove analize.

Grafikon 1 – Pregled presuda donesenih u BiH u toku 2012. godine po tužbenim zahtjevima u vezi sa primjenom zakona o slobodi pristupa informacijama.

Na osnovu analize presuda u upravnim sporovima donesenih u BiH tokom 2012. godine po tužbenim zahtjevima podnesenim u vezi sa primjenom zakona o slobodi pristupa informacijama, čiji pregled je dat u grafikonu 1., može se zaključiti da su sudovi u BiH tokom 2012. godine rješavali po ukupno 15 tužbi u upravnim sporovima, te su donijeli sedam (7) presuda kojim se tužbe odbijaju kao neosnovane,14 sedam (7) presuda kojim se tužbe uvažavaju i prvostepeni i drugostepeni akti poništavaju a predmeti vraćaju na ponovno odlučivanje,15 te jednu (1) presudu kojom je tužba odbačena kao prijevremena.16

2.1.1.1. Obaveza postupanja javnog organa po zahtjevu za pristup informacijama

Pristup informacijama, koje već nisu objavljene javnosti putem npr. elektronskih medija, se ostvaruje podnošenjem zahtjeva za pristup informacijama onom javnom organu za koji podnosilac zahtjeva smatra da je nadležan, iako treba znati da je organ ukoliko se smatra nenadležnim dužan takav zahtjev proslijediti nadležnom organu i o tome obavijestiti podnosioca zahtjeva. Zapravo, ova obaveza prosljeđivanja zahtjeva nadležnom organu je ustanovljena zakonima o slobodi pristupa informacijama, dok Arhuska konvencija samo ostavlja mogućnost takvog postupanja. Zahtjev za pristup informacijama ne mora biti obrazložen u smislu interesa podnosioca zahtjeva, ali mora biti u pisanoj formi na jednom od zvaničnih jezika u BiH i sadržavati ime podnosioca zahtjeva kao i njegovu adresu, te mora sadržavati dovoljno podataka o prirodi, odnosno sadržaju informacija, kako bi se omogućilo da javni organ provede redovne aktivnosti u cilju pronalaženja zahtijevanih informacija.

Javni organ je dužan odgovoriti na zahtjev u roku od 15 dana od dana podnošenja zahtjeva za pristup informacijama, izuzev u zakonom predviđenim slučajevima produžetka ovog roka. U suprotnom podnosilac ima pravo korištenja predviđenih pravnih lijekova zbog tzv. „šutnje uprave“ o čemu će u dijelu 2.1.3. ove analize biti više riječi.

14 Presuda KS u Bihaću, broj: 01 0 U 004573 10 U od 27.11.2012. godine; Presuda KS u Mostaru, broj: 07 0 U 006698 12 U od 13.11.2012. godine; Presuda KS u Zenici, broj: 04 0 U 004739 12 U od 28.09.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH, broj: S1 3 U 004829 11 U od 10.12.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH, broj: S1 3 U 007330 11 U od 16.02.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH, broj: S1 3 U 007332 11 U od 05.12.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH, broj: S1 3 U 007391 11 U od 16.05.2012. godine.

15 Presuda KS u Mostaru, broj: 07 0 U 006313 12 U od 07.06.2012. godine; Presuda KS Novi Travnik, broj: 06 0 U 004341 11 U od 07.12.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH, broj: S1 3 U 005999 11 U od 17.04.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH, broj: S1 3 U 005856 11 U od 13.09.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH, broj: S1 3 U 007276 11 U od 01.02.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH, broj: S1 3 U 007499 11 U od 28.02.2012. godine; Presuda OS u Banjoj Luci, broj: 11 0 U 006987 11 U od 08.05.2012. godine.

16 Presuda OS u Banjoj Luci, broj: 11 0 U 009977 12 U od 12.12.2012. godine.


Bez obzira da li javni organ odobrava pristup traženim informacijama ili u cjelosti ili djelomično odbija takav zahtjev, u skladu sa zakonima o slobodi pristupa informacijama i zakonima o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine, svoj odgovor je obavezan dostaviti u pisanom obliku. Arhuskom konvencijom je ostavljena nešto veća sloboda javnim organima, tako da se pisana forma zahtijeva ukoliko je zahtjev podnesen u pisanoj formi ili ukoliko to podnosilac zahtjeva izričito zahtijeva. Kako god, forma odluke koju javni organ donosi prema zakonima o slobodi pristupa informacijama u BiH i FBiH je rješenje, dok se u RS propisuje odgovor u formi dopisa.

Ukoliko javni organ odbije dostavljanje informacije djelomično ili u cjelosti, takvo rješenje, odnosno dopis mora biti u pisanoj formi i sadržavati odluku javnog organa, podatke o zakonskom osnovu za status izuzeća informacija uz navode članova zakona na koje se poziva, kao i sva materijalna pitanja koja su važna za odluku, što uključuje i razmatranje faktora javnog interesa, te pouku o pravnom lijeku. Dakle, rješenje, odnosno dopis mora biti obrazloženo, u suprotnom dolazi do povrede odredaba zakona o slobodi pristupa informacijama, a u konačnici i do povrede prava na djelotvoran pravni lijek i to u smislu člana 13. Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima i osnovnim slobodama koja u BiH ima primat nad svim drugim zakonima.

2.1.1.2. Izuzeci od obaveze dostavljanja informacija

Odredbama zakona o slobodi pristupa informacijama, zakona o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine i Arhuske konvencije se kao opće pravilo predviđa obaveza dostavljanja informacija uz poštivanje predviđenih procedura. Međutim, od ovog pravila su decidno navedeni i izuzeci, čijom primjenom javni organ može uskratiti dostavljanje informacije djelomično ili u cjelosti. Ovi izuzeci prema zakonima o slobodi pristupa informacijama se tiču funkcija javnih organa, zatim povjerljivih komercijalnih informacija i zaštite privatnosti.

S druge strane, zakoni o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine predviđaju veći broj izuzetaka u skladu sa Arhuskom konvencijom.17 Ipak, cjelokupna dostupna sudska praksa se veže za zakone o slobodi pristupa informacijama i izuzetke predviđene ovim zakonima, tako da će fokus ove analize biti na prethodno navedena tri izuzetka u svjetlu presuda nadležnih sudova donesenih tokom 2012. godine u BiH. Iako je vrlo malo presuda koje se tiču konkretno okoliša, jasno je da se sve odluke sudova u BiH koje su donesene po tužbama u vezi sa primjenom izuzetaka predviđenih zakonima o slobodi pristupa informacijama, mogu analogno primijeniti na sve oblasti, pa tako i na oblast zaštite okoliša.

Konačno, bitno je naglasiti i da zakoni o slobodi pristupa informacijama predviđaju i mogućnost razdvajanja informacija na dijelove i to ukoliko je traženi dio informacije utvrđen kao izuzetak, nadležni javni organ samo taj dio izdvaja i priopćava ostatak informacije podnositelju zahtjeva, osim ukoliko takvimrazdvajanjem informacija ne postane nerazumljiva.

a) Izuzetak od objavljivanja u vezi sa funkcijama javnih organa

Izuzetkom od objavljivanja informacije u vezi sa funkcijama javnih organa se propisuje da nadležni organ može utvrditi izuzetak, u slučajevima kada se otkrivanjem informacije osnovano može očekivati izazivanje značajne štete po legitimne ciljeve precizno navedenih kategorija, koje variraju zavisno od nivoa vlasti na kojem je donesen zakon o slobodi pristupa informacijama. Tako se Zakonom o slobodi pristupa informacijama u BiH kao relevantne kategorije utvrđuju: a) vanjska politika, interesi odbrane i sigurnosti, kao i zaštita javne sigurnosti; b) interesi monetarne politike; c) sprečavanje kriminala i svako otkrivanje kriminala; d) zaštita procesa donošenja odluke od strane javnog organa u davanju

17 Zahtjev za davanje informacija o okolišu može biti odbijen ukoliko: a) organi uprave ne posjeduju tražene informacije o životnoj sredini; b) zahtjev je očigledno neosnovan ili ne sadrži dovoljno podataka u vezi sa traženom infromacijom; c) zahtjev se tiče materijala koji je u fazi pripreme ili se tiče unutrašnje komunikacije organa upravegje je takov izuzimanje od davanja informacije predviđeno nekim drugim zakonom, uzimajući u obzir narušavanje opšteg interesa davanjem informacije, ili je informacija dostavljena predstavnicima udruženja ili fondacija, zainteresovanom stanovništvu odnosnog područja i štampi zbog kolektivnog javnog interesa i u tom slučaju će nadležni organ uprave uputiti podnosioca zahtjeva gdje može dobiti potrebne informacije.

Zahtjev za informacije o okolišu može biti odbijen ukoliko bi davanje informacija imalo štetan uticaj na: a) međunarodne odnose, odbranu ili opštu bezbijednost; b) tok postupka, pravo lica na pravedno suđenje i mogućnost organa uprave da sprovede krivični ili disciplinski postupak; c) povjerljivost informacija koje se tiču trgovine i industrije i infrormacije o emisijama koje su bitne za zaštitu životne sredine, ukoliko je to utvrđeno posebnim propisima s ciljem zaštite ekonomskih interesa; d) prava intelektualne svojine; e) povjerljivost ličnih podataka i/ili dokumenta koji se odnose na fizička lica u slučaju da ta lica nisu dala suglasnost za otkrivanje datih informacija javnosti; f) interese trećih lica koje je obezbijedilo tražene informacije a da na to nije bilo obavezno i ukoliko to lice ne da suglasnost za otkrivanje datog materijala; g) okoliš na koji se informacije odnose, kao što su mjesta uzgoja rijetkih vrsta.

16

mišljenja, savjeta ili preporuka od strane javnog organa, zaposlene osobe u javnom organu ili svake osobe koja vrši aktivnosti za ili u ime javnog organa, a ne obuhvaća činjenične, statističke, naučne ili tehničke informacije. Gotovo identično, u skladu sa entitetskim uređenjem, entitetski zakoni o slobodi pristupa informacijama propisuju utvrđivanje svih izuzetaka, izuzev u slučajevima vanjske i monetarne politike, ozbirom da su ove oblasti u isključivoj nadležnosti BiH.

Važno je naglasiti da se prilikom utvrđivanja ovog izuzetka moraju konsultirati i drugi relevantni zakoni, kao npr. Zakon o Obavještajno-sigurnosnoj agenciji BiH, Zakon o zaštiti ličnih podataka, te zakoni koji regulišu pojedine oblasti u procesima odlučivanja i donošenja odluka, uključujući pravilnike i poslovnike nadležnih organa koji učestvuju u donošenju ovih odluka.

Prema raspoloživim podacima i prikupljenim presudama, broj sudskih odluka donesenih u BiH tokom 2012. godine po tužbenim zahtjevima u upravnim sporovima koji se tiču izuzetaka od objavljivanja informacija u vezi sa funkcijama javnih organa nije veliki, a njihov pregled je dat u grafikonu 2.

Grafikon 2 – Pregled presuda donesenih u 2012. godini u BiH po tužbenim zahtjevima u vezi sa izuzecima od objavljivanja informacija u vezi sa funkcijama javnih organa

Naime, u toku 2012. godine sudovi u BiH su donijeli ukupno pet (5) presuda po tužbama u upravnim sporovima koje se tiču ovog izuzetka. Svim presudama su odbijeni tužbeni zahtjevi, pri čemu je Sud BiH u tri predmeta zaključio da su nadležni organi ispravno utvrdili postojanje izuzetka obzirom da bi se objavljivanjem traženih informacija osnovano moglo očekivati izazivanje značajne štete po legitimne ciljeve BiH, odnosno vanjske politike, zaštite interesa odbrane i sigurnosti, kao i zaštite javne sigurnosti, jer je tužena strana u toku postupka pravilno utvrdila da se radi o operativnom materijalu koji, između ostalog, nosi oznaku tajnosti.18 U jednom (1) predmetu Sud BiH je odbio tužbeni zahtjev smatrajući da su nadležni javni organi ispravno utvrdili izuzetak od objavljivanja informacija u vezi sa funkcijama javnih organa u svrhu zaštite procesa donošenja odluka od strane nadležnog organa kao samostalnog i nezavisnog organa,19 dok je isti zaključak izveo Kantonalni sud u Bihaću kada je odbio tužbeni zahtjev koji se tiče odbijanja pristupa informacijama radi zaštite procesa donošenja odluke od strane javnog organa odnosno svake osobe koja vrši aktivnosti za ili u ime javnog organa, a ne obuhvaća činjenične, statističke, naučne ili tehničke informacije.20

Sudeći prema raspoloživim i prikupljenim podacima sudovi u BiH su tokom 2012. godine u svim predmetima odbili tužbene zahtjeve smatrajući da su organi u upravnom postupku po zahtijevima za pristup informacijama ispravno primijenili izuzetak od objavljivanja u vezi sa funkcijama javnih organa, što ukazuje i na značaj interesa koji se ovim izuzetkom štite posebno na državnom nivou u predmetima u kojima je postupao Sud BiH. Ipak, ovaj zaključak je izveden isključivo na osnovu pribavljenih podataka, tako da postoji mogućnost da su sudovi tokom 2012. godine donosili i drugačije odluke, a koje nije bilo moguće analizirati ovom prilikom.

18 Presuda Suda BiH broj:S1 3 U 004829 11 U od 10.12.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH broj: S1 3 U 004829 11 U od 10.12.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH broj: S1 3 U 007331 11 U od 04.11.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH broj: S1 3 U 007330 11 U od 16.02.2012. godine.

19 Presuda Suda BiH, broj: S1 3 U 007391 11 U od 16.05.2012. godine.20 Presuda KS u Bihaću, broj: 01 0 U 004573 10 U od 27.11.2012. godine.


b) Izuzetak od objavljivanja u vezi sa povjerljivim komercijalnim informacijama

Izuzetak koji se veže za povjerljive komercijalne interese se utvrđuje u slučajevima kada nadležni organ osnovano utvrdi da zahtjev za pristup informacijama uključuje povjerljive komercijalne interese treće strane. S obzirom da se informacije tiču treće strane, nadležni organ ima obavezu da dopisom obavijesti treću stranu u podnesenom zahtjevu, a treća strana ima pravo da u pisanoj formi obavijesti nadležni organ da tražene informacije smatra povjerljivim, uz obavezu navođenja razloga zbog kojih bi priopćavanjem takve informacije mogla nastupiti šteta. Tek nakon prijema odgovora treće strane nadležni organ odlučuje o osnovanosti utvrđivanja izuzetka u vezi sa povjerljivim komercijalnim informacijama. Ukoliko, pak, treća strana ne odgovori u ostavljenom roku od 15 dana nadležni javni organ objavljuje traženu informaciju, o čemu se treća strana i poučava u prethodno dostavljenom obavještenju.

Praksa je pokazala da javni organi o upućenom obavještenju trećoj strani informiraju i podnosioca zahtjeva. Rok za dostavu traženih informacija se u ovom slučaju produžava za dodatnih 15 dana, obzirom da je to vremenski period koji je zakonom predviđen za komunikaciju sa trećom stranom.

Prema raspoloživim podacima i prikupljenim presudama za potrebe ove analize, u toku 2012. godine sudovi u BiH nisu rješavali po tužbenim zahtjevima u vezi sa odbijanjem dostave informacija zbog izuzetka od objavljivanja u vezi sa povjerljivim komercijalnim informacijama.

c) Izuzetak od objavljivanja informacija kod zaštite privatnosti

Treći izuzetak propisan zakonima o slobodi pristupa informacijama je izuzetak u vezi sa zaštitom privatnosti koji se primjenjuje kada nadležni javni organ smatra da postoji izuzetak od davanja tražene informacije ako osnovano utvrdi da informacija uključuje lične interese koji se odnose na privatnost treće osobe. Na ovaj način formulirani izuzetak pruža, zapravo, najširu moguću zaštitu i tzv. interesima privatnosti, ali i podnosiocima zahtjeva u pogledu njihova prava na pristup informacijama, jer bi se svakim pokušajem taksativnog navođenja da li u oblasti u kojima je uskraćen pristup ili suprotno, znatno suzio opseg primjenljivosti i zaštite privatnosti i pristupa informacijama. Prilikom odlučivanja o postojanju i ovog izuzetka neophodno je imati u vidu odredbe drugih zakona, kao npr. Zakona o zaštiti ličnih podataka BiH.

Iz raspoloživih podataka i prikupljenih presuda proizilazi da su sudovi u BiH tokom 2012. godine rješavali po određenom, iako malom, broju tužbenih zahtjeva u upravnim sporovima koji se tiču izuzetaka od objavljivanja informacija kod zašite privatnosti, čiji pregled je dat u grafiku 3.

Grafikon 4 – Pregled presuda donesenih u 2012. godini u BiH po tužbenim zahtjevima u vezi sa izuzetkom od objavljivanja informacija kod zaštite privatnosti

Sudovi u BiH su, prema raspoloživim podacima, tokom 2012. godine odlučivali u ukupno četiri (4) upravna spora u vezi sa odbijanjem zahtjeva za pristup informacijama usljed utvrđivanja izuzetka kod zaštite privatnosti. Sud BiH je donio ukupno dvije (2) presude, od kojih je jednom odbio tužbeni zahtjev, smatrajući da je u upravnom postupku koji je prethodno ispravno utvrđen izuzetak od objavljivanja informacija u vezi sa zaštitom privatnosti,21 dok je drugom presudom uvažio tužbu i poništio prvostepeno i drugostepeno rješenje smatrajući da nije ispravno utvrđen izuzetak kod zaštite

21 Presuda Suda BiH, broj: S1 3 U 007391 11 U od 16.05.2012. godine.

18

privatnosti.22 Kantonalni sud u Novom Travniku i Kantonalni sud Mostar su donijeli po jednu (1) presudu kojom se tužba uvažava i prethodna rješenja poništavaju, odnosno ukidaju, te je predmet vraćen na ponovno rješavanje.23

2.1.1.3. Obaveza ispitivanja javnog interesa

Zakonima o slobodi pristupa informacijama, ali i Arhuskom konvencijom, je propisana obaveza tzv. ispitivanja javnog interesa, koja podrazumijeva da će javni organ priopćiti traženu informaciju, bez obzira na utvrđeni izuzetak, ukoliko je to opravdano javnim interesom. Pri tome javni organ mora uzeti u obzir svaku korist i štetu koje bi mogle proisteći iz priopćavanja takve informacije i svoj zaključak detaljno obrazložiti. Dakle, nije dovoljno da javni organ samo navede kako priopćavanje tražene informacije nije opravdano u javnom interesu, nego je neophodno navesti i razloge takvog zaključka. U suprotnom dolazi do pogrešnog tumačenja ove odredbe.24

Sud BiH je u svojoj sudskoj praksi utvrdio da „u donošenju odluke da li je objavljivanje informacije opravdano javnim interesom, nadležno javno tijelo će razmotriti okolnosti kao što su, ali nisu ograničeni na, svako nepoštivanje zakonske obaveze postojanje bilo kakvog prijestupa, sudske greške, zloupotrebe vlasti ili nemar u vršenju službene dužnosti, neovlašteno korištenje javnih fondova ili opasnost po zdravlje ili sigurnost pojedinca, javnosti ili okoline“.25

Bitno je naglasiti i da ukoliko javni organ utvrdi da je priopćavanje tražene informacije u javnom interesu kada je utvrđen izuzetak u smislu povjerljivih komercijalnih interesa ili zaštite privatnosti, nadležni javni organ je dužan treću stranu obavijestiti o tome da će takvu informaciju priopćiti po isteku roka od 15 dana od dana prijema tog akta, koji obavezno sadrži pouku o pravnom lijeku.

2.1.2. Pravo na učešće javnosti u donošenju odluka

Drugi stub Arhuske konvencije, koji je inkorporiran i u zakonima o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine u BiH, jeste pravo na učešće javnosti u donošenju odluka koje se tiču okoliša. Poimanje učešća javnosti u pravnom smislu je dvostruko i ono, u užem smislu, podrazumijeva skup prava koja omogućavaju da se na osnovu raspoloživih informacija zainteresirana javnost aktivno uključi u proces odlučivanja u najranijim fazama, dok u širem smislu, ono podrazumijeva ukupnost odnosa koji obilježavaju demokratski tok donošenja odluka, što obuhvaća sva tri stuba Arhuske konvencije: pravo na pristup informacijama, pravo na učešće u odlučivanju i pravo na „pristup pravdi“.

Učešće javnosti je kompleksan proces koji se može organizirati na različite načine, dogoditi se u različitim situacijama i uključiti brojne učesnike. Ovaj proces je dugotrajan i od velike važnosti za demokratski razvoj jedne zemlje. U njemu se crpe znanja, vještine i entuzijazam građana kako bi se donosile bolje i demokratičnije odluke. Učinci takvog procesa ne mogu se osjetiti u kratkom roku, ali oni predstavljaju okosnicu održivog razvoja, jer se uključivanjem javnosti u odlučivanje poboljšava kvalitet odluka, donesene odluke odgovaraju na potrebe većeg broja građana, a sam proces dobija na legitimnosti i otvorenosti. Samim tim smanjuje se i rizik od neprihvatanja odluka od strane onih koji ih trebaju provoditi.

Uključivanje javnosti u odlučivanje ne znači da će automatski svi građani biti zadovoljni donesenim odlukama, ali se omogućava građanima da izraze svoje mišljenje i stavove, koji se razmatraju u toku procesa, da bi se postigao konsenzus. Međutim, i pored mnogobrojnih pozitivnih učinaka, uključivanje javnosti može pratiti niz teškoća, poput usporenog procesa donošenja konačne odluke i podizanja nerealnih očekivanja među građanima o krajnjem ishodu. Ipak, dugoročno gledano, uključivanje javnosti u odlučivanje podiže nivo demokracije, građani postepeno uviđaju da se njihovo da se njihovo mišljenje vrednuje i uvažava, a povjerenje građana u vlastraste, kao i njihova uvjerenost da mogu uticati na promjene javnih politika i osjećaj pripadnosti zajednici.

Od država potpisnica Arhuske konvencije, pa tako i od BiH, zahtijeva se da se javnost obavezno

22 Presuda Suda BiH, broj: S1 3 U 007499 11 U od 28.02.2012. godine.23 Presuda KS u Novom Travniku, broj: 06 0 U 004341 11 U od 07.12.2012. godine; Presuda KS u Mostaru, broj: 07 0 U

006313 12 U od 07.06.2012. godine.24 Presuda Kantonalnog suda u Zenici, broj: 04 0 U 003194 11 U od 24.11.2011. godine.25 Presuda Suda BiH broj:S1 3 U 004829 11 U od 10.12.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH broj: S1 3 U 004829 11 U od

10.12.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH broj: S1 3 U 007331 11 U od 04.11.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH broj: S1 3 U 007332 11 U od 05.12.2012. godine; Presuda Suda BiH broj: S1 3 U 007330 11 U od 16.02.2012. godine.


uključi u proces usvajanja pravnih propisa koji se tiču zaštite okoliša i okolinskihplanova i programa i odlučivanja o posebnim aktivnostima koje mogu biti od značaja za okoliš.

Postoje različite tehnike, te formalne i neformalne metode učešća javnosti u procesu donošenja odluka ovisno o nivou na koji se odluka donosi. Prvi korak u cjelokupnom postupku je osiguravanje adekvatnih informacija o tome da se pokreće mehanizam donošenja odluka, koje podrazumijevaju učešće javnosti. Drugi korak je osiguravanje informacija o samom sadržaju odluke, koja treba da se donese, i treći korak su metode učešća javnosti, i to formalne kakve su javni uvid, javna rasprava, referendum, zbor građana i građanska inicijativa, teneformalne u koje spadajuzagovaranje, lobiranje i direktni pritisci u vidu prikupljanja potpisa, slanja peticija i sl. 26

Pravo na učešće javnosti je inkorporirano i u zakonima o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine u BiH, gotovo na identičan način kao i u Arhuskoj konvenciji, čiji značaj leži u tome što ona naglašava važnost pravovremenog obavještavanja i uključivanja javnosti u ranim fazama procesa odlučivanja; štiti pravo zainteresirane javnosti da besplatno ispita sve informacije važne za odlučivanje i pravo javnosti da iznese primjedbe ili informacije, koje smatra važnim za donošenje odluke; obavezuje organ koji donosi odluku da uzme u obzir komentare i sugestije javnosti; te uvodi obavezu organa javne uprave da informira javnost o svim donesenim odlukama, tj. da objavi tekst odluke i razloge na kojima se odluka zasniva.

Jedna od najvažnijih aktivnosti, koja zahtijeva učešće javnosti u donošenju odluka jeste proces procjene uticaja na životnu sredinu, odnosno izdavanja okolinskih/ekoloških dozvola. Zakonima o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine, odnosno pravilnicima koji proističu iz njih propisan je postupak procjene utjecaja projekata i pogona, koji mogu imati uticati na okoliš.

Analizom prikupljenih presuda može se uočiti da je u 2012. godini donesena samo jedna presuda koja se, istina ne odnosi na učešće javnosti u donošenju odluka, ali se tiče Studije uticaja na životnu sredinu male hidroelektrane na rijeci Sani, a kojom je Okružni sud u Banjoj Luci odbio podnesenu tužbu kao neosnovanu.27 Usljed nedostatka sudskih odluka po ovom pitanju prilikom izrade ove analize nije bilo moguće ni vršiti detaljnije obrade ove materije.

2.1.3. Pravo na „pristup pravdi“

Pravo na „pristup pravdi“ je termin koji se koristi u prevodu trećeg stuba Arhuske konvencije, a označava pravo na pravni lijek. U smislu trećeg stuba Arhuske konvencije ovo pravo se odnosi na omogućavanje preispitivanja odluka od strane nadležnih drugostepenih organa korištenjem pravnih lijekova i to u odnosu na prva dva stuba Arhuske konvencije – pravo na pristup informacijama i pravo na učešće javnosti u donošenju odluka, ali i u vezi sa pobijanjem činjenja i propusta privatnih lica i javnih organa vlasti koji se protive odredbama domaćeg zakonodavstva koje se odnosi na okoliš. Pravo na „pristup pravdi“ u smislu Arhuske konvencije označava pravo na podnošenje raspoloživih pravnih lijekova ili nezavisnom i nepristrasnom organu ili sudovima.

Primjenjivost ovog stuba Arhuske konvencije, kao i prethodna dva, mora se razmatrati u svjetlu propisa domaćeg zakonodavstva i raspoloživih pravnih lijekova. U tom smislu, ukoliko je domaćim zakonodavstvom predviđeno pravo žalbe na prvostepenu odluku upravnog organa, da se prvo taj pravni lijek mora iskoristiti, a da se tek nakon toga može podnijeti tužba u upravnom sporu, sve u skladu sa zakonima o upravnim postupcima i zakonima o upravnim sporovima koji su doneseni u BiH.28 Ukoliko, pak, žalba kao redovni pravni lijek u upravnom postupku nije dozvoljena, takva odluka postaje konačna i protiv nje je odmah dozvoljeno podnošenje tužbe u upravnom sporu, ukoliko to nije drugačije regulirano posebnim zakonom.

26 Priručnik za praktičnu primjenu Aarhuske konvencije u Bosni i Hercegovini, OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, ISBN No. 978-92-9234-019-3, str. 26 – 38.

27 Presuda OS u Banjoj Luci, broj: 11 0 U 009977 12 U od 12.12.2012. godine.28 Zakon o upravnom postupku BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 29/02, 12/04, 88/07, 93/09 i 41/13); Zakon o upravnom postupku

BD BiH („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, broj: 3/00, 5/00, 9/02, 8/03, 8/04, 25/05, 8/07, 10/07, 19/07, 2/08, 36/09 i 48/11 – preciscen tekst); Zakon o upravnom postupku FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 2/98 i 48/99); Zakon o opštem upravnom postupku RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 13/02, 87/07 i 50/10).

Zakon o upravnim sporovima BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 19/02, 88/07, 83/08 i 74/10); Zakon o upravnim sporovima BD BiH („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, broj: 4/00 i 1/01); Zakon o upravnim sporovima RS(„Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 109/05); Zakon o upravnim sporovima FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 9/05).

20

Pored redovnih pravnih lijekova, zakoni o upravnim postupcima predviđaju i vanredne pravne lijekove koji se mogu koristiti isključivo u zakonom preciziranim slučajevima, a ti pravni lijekovi su: obnova postupka, mijenjanje i poništavanje rješenja u vezi sa upravnim sporom, poništavanje i ukidanje rješenja po pravu nadzora, zahtjev za zaštitu zakonitosti, vanredno ukidanje rješenja, oglašavanje rješenja ništavim i ukidanje i mijenjanje pravomoćnog rješenja uz pristanak ili na zahtjev stranke.

Sudovi u BiH koji su nadležni za postupanje po tužbama u upravnim sporovima su Sud BiH na nivou BiH,29 zatim Vrhovni sud FBiH i kantonalni sudovi u FBiH,30 Vrhovni sud RS i okružni sudovi u RS,31 te Apelacioni sud i Osnovni sud u BD BiH.32

Obzirom da je u dijelu upravno-pravne zaštite okoliša najviše pažnje posvećeno pravu na pristup informacijama, te da se gotovo sve prikupljene presude sudova u BiH koje su donesene u toku 2012. godine tiču primjene zakona o slobodi pristupa informacijama, korisno i neophodno je obraditi i korištenje pravnih lijekova po odlukama nadležnih organa o dostavljenim zahtjevima za pristup informacijama.

Prethodno je već naglašeno da je javni organ dužan odgovoriti na zahtjev u roku od 15 dana od dana podnošenja zahtjeva za pristup informacijama, izuzev u zakonom predviđenim slučajevima produžetka ovog roka, a ukoliko to ne učini ni u naknadno ostavljenom roku od sedam (7) dana, podnosilac zahtjeva ima pravo podnijeti žalbu nadležnom drugostepenom organu. Isto pravilo se odnosi i na postupanje drugostepenog organa po žalbi. Naime, ukoliko organ ne donese rješenje po žalbi na prvostepenu odluku, i to u roku od 30 dana i u naknadnom roku koji u skladu sa Zakonom o upravnim sporovima BiH iznosi sedam (7) dana,33 pri čemu ovaj rok varira zavisno od zakona o upravnim sporovima koji se primjenjuje, podnosilac zahtjeva ima pravo na podnošenje tužbe u upravnom sporu. Nepostupanje organa po zahtjevu ili žalbi se naziva „šutnja uprave“.

Iz sudske prakse je očigledno da sudovi prilikom rješavanja po tužbama zbog tzv. „šutnje uprave“ ne ulaze u meritum predmeta i ne rješavaju po zahtjevu za pristup informacijama u smislu njegova odobravanja ili odbijanja, nego samo utvrđuju da li je javni organ postupio u skladu sa zakonskim odredbama u smislu rješavanja po zahtjevu za pristup informacijama u predviđenim rokovima. U slučaju da sudovi utvrde da je došlo do tzv. „šutnje uprave“ oninalažu organu da u određenom roku donese akt po zahtjevu za pristup informacijama ili po podnesenoj žalbi, ukoliko se radi o „šutnje uprave“ u drugostepnom postupku.

U posljednje vrijeme dolazi do tumačenja kako npr. protiv odluka ministarstava po zahtjevima za pristup informacijama nije predviđeno pravo žalbe nego je jedino predviđena mogućnost podnošenja tužbe u upravnom sporu. Ovakve tvrdnje se, pak, ne mogu smatrati tačnim, a što proizilazi kako iz odredbi zakona o slobodi pristupa informacijama, tako i iz sudske prakse. Naime, zakonima o slobodi pristupa informacijama, koji se primjenjuju kao lex specialis, je predviđena mogućnost podnošenja žalbe protiv rješenja, odnosno dopisa u RS, i to u roku od 15 dana od dana dostave takvog akta, a tek nakon odluke drugostepenog organa po podnesenoj žalbi takav akt postaje konačan i postoji mogućnost podnošenja tužbe u upravnom sporu u skladu sa zakonima o upravnim sporovima. U suprotnom, sudovi ne mogu postupati po takvim tužbama obzirom da su preuranjene i kao takve bivaju odbačene.

Upravo ovo stanovište je zauzeo i Okružni sud u Banjoj Luci koji je u predmetu broj: 11 0 U 008640 12 U tužbu odbacio kao prijevremenu, obzirom da je tužitelj imao mogućnost podnošenja žalbe tuženoj, ali da ovaj pravni lijek nije iskoristio, pa prema tome nisu ispunjeni ni uslovi za pokretanje upravnog spora.34

Dalje, zakonima o slobodi pristupa informacijama je predviđena mogućnost podnošenja žalbe u slučajevima kada je zahtjev za pristup informacijama u cjelosti ili djelomično odbijen, odnosno u slučaju tzv. „šutnje uprave“. Međutim u praksi se javlja situacija u kojoj je sud morao odlučivati o tužbi u predmetu gdje je podnositelju zahtjeva odobren uvid u tražene informacije, ali nakon proteka

29 Zakon o Sudu BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, br. 49/09 – prečišćeni tekst, 74/09 i 97/09).30 Zakon o sudovima u FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, br. 22/06, 63/10, 72/10 i 7/13).31 Zakon o sudovima RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, br. 37/12).32 Zakon o sudovima BD („Sl. glasnik BD“, br. 19/07, 20/07, 39/09 i 31/11).33 Član 21. Zakona o upravnim sporovima BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 19/02, 88/07, 83/08 i 74/10).34 Presuda Okružnog suda u Banjoj Luci, broj: 11 0 U 008640 12 U od 04.07.2012. godine.


predviđenog roka od 15 dana. Kantonalni sud u Zenici je takvu tužbu odbio kao neosnovanu i zaključio da „odredbama Zakona o slobodi pristupa informacijama u Federaciji Bosne i Hercegovine nije propisana mogućnost podnošenja prigovora, niti žalbe protiv rješenja kojima je stranci odobren pristup traženim informacijama, nakon proteka roka od 15 dana od dana prijema zahtjeva“.35

Konačno, Arhuska konvencija u trećem stubu predviđa i pravo na „pristup pravdi“ u vezi sa pobijanjem činjenja i propusta privatnih lica i javnih organa vlasti koji se protive odredbama domaćeg zakonodavstva koje se odnosi na okoliš. Instrumenti pravne zaštite u odnosu na ovu odredbu su predviđeni zakonima o parničnom postupku koji su doneseni u BiH, te Zakonom o obligacionim odnosima. Bitno je ukazati i da je Zakon o parničnom postupku Republike Srpske, izmjenama i dopunama iz 2013 godine, uveo tužbu za zaštitu kolektivnog interesa. Tom tužbom udruženja, organi, ustanove ili druge organizacije koje su osnovane u skladu sa zakonom, koje se u sklopu svoje registrirane ili propisom određene djelatnosti bave zaštitom zakonom utvrđenih kolektivnih interesa i prava građana, mogu kada je takvo ovlaštenje posebnim zakonom izričito predviđeno i uz uslove predviđene tim zakonom, podnijeti tužbu za zaštitu kolektivnih interesa i prava protiv fizičkog ili pravnog lica koja obavljanjem određene djelatnosti ili uopćeno radom, postupanjem, pa i propuštanjem, teže kršiili ozbiljno ugrožava takve kolektivne interese i prava. Ti interesi mogu biti interesi koji se tiču okoliša i njegove zaštite, zatim moralni, etnički, potrošački, antidiskriminacijski i drugi interesi, koji su zakonski zagarantirani i koji moraju biti teže povrijeđeni ili ozbiljno ugroženi djelatnošću, odnosno općenito postupanjem lica protiv kojeg se tužba podnosi.

2.1.4. Zaključak

Prilikom prikupljanja presuda i podataka neophodnih za izradu ove analize pojavile su se teškoće u pristupu presudama sudova u BiH, a koje bi se ticale upravno-pravne zaštite okoliša, odnosno pristupa informacijama koje se tiču okoliša i učešća javnosti u donošenju odluka koje se tiču okoliša, sve u smislu Arhuske konvencije. Uprkos iscrpnoj pomoći Visokog sudskog i tužilačkog vijeća, nije bilo moguće pristupiti svim presudama donesenim u 2012. godini koje se odnose na ovu materiju, usljed čega postoji mogućnost da postoje i druge presude, kojima pristup nije bio omogućen.

Kako god, prikupljene presude ukazuju na zaključak da u BiH tokom 2012. godine nije donesena niti jedna presuda koja bi se odnosila na pravo na pristup informacijama u vezi sa okolišem ili na pravo na učešće javnosti u donošenju odluka po pitanju okoliša. Samo je jedna presuda koja se tiče direktno zaštite okoliša donesena od strane Okružnog suda u Banjoj Luci i odnosi se na Studiju uticaja na životnu sredinu.

Dalje, prikupljene presude također ukazuju na činjenicu da tokom 2012. godine u BiH nisu donesene presude u upravnim sporovima u kojima bi sudovi primjenjivali odredbe Arhuske konvencije i zakona o zaštiti okoliša/životne sredine, izuzev već citirane presude Okružnog suda u Banjoj Luci koja se pozivala na Zakon o zaštiti životne sredine RS. Uglavnom, prikupljene presude se tiču primjene zakona o slobodi pristupa informacija u odnosu na fizičkih lica koja traže informacije najviše vezane za rad organa uprave u BiH, sektor oružanih snaga i zdravstvene zaštite u vezi sa ličnim informacijama. Nešto manji broj tužbi podnijela su pravna lica u vezi sa ostvarivanjem svojih prava u sektoru imovinsko-pravnih odnosa.

O uzrocima nepostojanja sudske prakse u pogledu zaštite okoliša u smislu odredbi Arhuske konvencije trenutno je nezahvalno govoriti obzirom da ne postoje detaljniji podaci u tom pravcu, ali je za pretpostaviti da takve tužbe ili nisu podnošene ili da ne postoji adekvatna baza sudskih odluka koja bi sadržavala takve podatke. S tim u vezi bi jedna od preporuka za buduće analize u ovoj oblasti bila uspostava posebnog odjeljka u bazama sudskih odluka, tzv. CMS-u, u kojoj bi se evidentirale odluke sudova donesene po pitanjima pristupa informacijama u vezi sa okolišem i po pitanjima učešća javnosti u donošenju odluka koje se tiču okoliša.

2.2. Krivično-pravna zaštita okoliša u BiH

Zaštita okoliša u BiH se, između ostalog, ostvaruje i putem krivično-pravne zaštite. S obzirom na složeno državno uređenje BiH, već je jasno da se krivično zakonodavstvo primjenjuje zavisno od nivoa vlasti o kojem se radi. Tako su krivična djela, uključujući i krivična djela protiv okoliša, sadržana u

35 Presuda Kanotnalnog suda u Zenici, broj: 04 0 U 004739 12 U od 28.09.2012. godine.

22

više krivičnih zakona, odnosno u Krivičnom zakonu BiH (u daljem tekstu: KZ BiH),36 Krivičnom zakonu FBiH (u daljem tekstu: KZ FBiH),37 Krivičnom zakonu RS (u daljem tekstu: KZ RS)38 i Krivičnom zakonu BD BiH (u daljem tekstu KZ BD)39.

Zavisno od teritorije i krivičnog zakona u kojem je sadržano krivično djelo, primjenjuje se i odgovarajući zakon o krivičnom postupku, kojima se uređuju pravila krivičnog postupka i po kojima su sudovi, tužioci i svi drugi učesnici dužni postupati. Naime, na državnom nivou se primjenjuje Zakon o krivičnom postupku BiH (u daljem tekstu: ZKP BiH),40 na entitetskim nivoima Zakon o krivičnom postupku FBiH (u daljem tekstu: ZKP FBiH)41 i Zakon o krivičnom postupku RS (u daljem tekstu: ZKP RS)42, a u BD BiH Zakon o krivičnom postupku BD BiH (u daljem tekstu: ZKP BD)43.

Analogno tome, zavisno od krivičnog djela o kojem se radi, određuje se svakako i nadležnost pojedinih sudova u BiH, tako je Sud BiH nadležan za postupanje u prvom i drugom stepenu po krivičnim djelima sadržanim u KZ BiH i drugim relevantnim zakonima u BiH, u prvom stepenu je nadležno Krivično odjeljenje Sud BiH. 44 Nadležni sudovi u FBiH u prvom stepenu mogu biti i općinski i kantonalni sudovi, dok su u drugom stepenu po žalbama na presude općinskih sudova odlučuju kantonalni sudovi, a po žalbama na prvostepene presude kantonalnih sudova odlučuje Vrhovni sud FBiH.45 U RS su osnovni i okružni sudovi nadležni za postupanja u prvom stepenu, dok su okružni sudovi nadležni za rješavanje po žalbama protiv presuda osnovnih sudova, Vrhovni sud RS je nadležan za postupanje po žalbama protiv presuda okružnih sudova.46 U BD BiH nadležnost za suđenja u prvom stepenu pripada Osnovnom sudu BD BiH, dok je Apelacijski sud BD BiH nadležan za rješavanje po žalbama na presude Osnovnog suda BD BiH.47

a) Krivična djela protiv okoliša u BiH

Krivičnim djelom smatra se svako protupravno djelo koje je zakonom propisano kao krivično djelo, čija su obilježja propisana zakonom i za koje je zakonom propisana krivično-pravna sankcija, a može biti počinjeno činjenjem ili nečinjenjem. Počinilac krivičnog djela može biti i fizičko i pravno lice,48 a svrha kažnjavanja se određuje kao potreba da se izrazi društvena osuda počinjenog krivičnog djela; da se utiče na počinitelja da ubuduće ne čini krivična djela i podstakne njegov preodgoj; da se utiče na ostale da ne čine krivična djela; i da se utiče na svijest građana o pogibeljnosti krivičnih djela i o pravednosti kažnjavanja počinitelja.

Obzirom da u BiH ne postoji usaglašena definicija krivičnog djela protiv okoliša, za potrebe ove analize, kao krivično djelo protiv okoliša u BiH se smatra svako ono krivično djelo koje je sadržano u relevantnim glavama krivičnih zakona u BiH. Konkretno, KZ FBiH je ovo pitanje regulirao u Glavi XXVI – krivična djela protiv okoliša, poljoprivrede i prirodnih dobara (članovi 303. – 322. KZ FBiH); KZ RS u Glavi XXXIII – krivična djela protiv životne sredine (članovi 415. – 437. KZ RS); i KZ BD u Glavi XXVI – krivična djela protiv okoliša, poljoprivrede i prirodnih dobara (članovi 297. - 316. KZ BD). Krivična djela protiv okoliša sadržana u KZ FBiH i KZ BD su gotovo identična, a donekle se razlikuju od krivičnih djela protiv okoliša sadržanih u KZ RS i to u odnosu na nazive, zapriječenu kaznu (npr. krivično djelo Onečišćenja okoliša iz člana 303. KZ FBiH propisuje kaznu zatvora od tri mjeseca do pet godina, dok krivično djelo Zagađivanja životne sredine iz člana 415. KZ RS propisuje novčanu kaznu ili kaznu zatvora do dvije godine); kvalificirani oblik krivičnih djela (npr. krivično djelo Onečišćenja okoliša iz člana 303. KZ FBiH u slučaju smrti jedne ili više osoba, propisuje kaznu zatvora od jedne do

36 Krivični zakon BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, br. 32/03, 37/03, 54/04, 61/04, 30/05, 53/06, 55/06, 32/07 i 8/10).37 Krivični zakon FBiH („Sl novine FBiH“, br. 36/03, 37/03, 21/04, 69/04, 18/05, 42/10 i 42/11).38 Krivični zakon RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, br. 49/03, 70/06, 73/10 i 1/12).39 Krivični zakon BD („Sl. glasnik BD“, br. 33/13 – prečišćeni tekst).40 Zakon o krivičnom postupku BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, br. 36/03, 26/04, 63/04, 13/05, 48/05, 46/06, 76/06, 29/07, 32/07, 53/07,

76/07, 15/08, 58/08, 12/09, 16/09, 93/09 i 72/13).41 Zakon o krivičnom postupku FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, br. 35/03, 37/03, 56/03, 78/04, 28/05, 55/06, 27/07, 53/07, 9/09, 12/10

i 8/13).42 Zakon o krivičnom postupku RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, br. 53/12).43 Zakon o krivičnom postupku BD („Sl. glasnik BD“, br. 33/13 – prečišćeni tekst).44 Zakon o Sudu BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, br. 49/09 – prečišćeni tekst, 74/09 i 97/09).45 Zakon o sudovima u FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, br. 22/06, 63/10, 72/10 i 7/13).46 Zakon o sudovima RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, br. 37/12).47 Zakon o sudovima BD („Sl. glasnik BD“, br. 19/07, 20/07, 39/09 i 31/11).48 Odgovornost pravnog lica se ne odnosi na BiH, FBiH, RS, BD Bi, kanton, grad, opštinu i mjesnu zajednicu.


dvanaest godina, dok krivično djelo Zagađivanja životne sredine iz člana 415. KZ RS ne sadrži sličnu odredbu) i sl.

Prethodno navedeno svakako ne znači da se kao krivična djela protiv okoliša ne mogu smatrati neka druga djela sadržana u propisima u BiH kao što su Neovlašteno pribavljanje i raspolaganje nuklearnim materijalom (član 194. KZ BiH), Zagađivanje vode za piće i živežnih namirnica (član 236. KZ FBiH) i dr. Ipak, s obzirom na dostavljene podatke, u ovoj analizi ova krivična djela suđena pred Sudom BiH nisu razmatrana, jer nedostaju podaci o postojanju prijava, optužnica i presuda u tom pravcu.

Imajući u vidu značaj propisa EU u BiH koji je obrazložen u uvodnom dijelu ove analize, svakako je prilikom njene izrade bilo neophodno konsultirati iste. Naime, EU Direktiva 2008/99/EZ o zaštiti okoliša putem krivičnog prava predstavlja polaznu osnovu pri definiranju krivičnog djela protiv okoliša i u svom članu 3. definira krivična djela protiv okoliša. Pored navođenja krivičnih djela, ova Direktiva sadrži obavezu izricanja učinkovitih, proporcionalnih i odvraćajućih krivičnih sankcija za fizička i pravna lica. Do momenta pisanja ovog dokumenta, detaljna analiza usklađenosti propisa u BiH sa odredbama Direktive 2008/99/EZ nije objavljena, tako da su krivična djela sadržana u Direktivi 2008/99/EZ uzeta u obzir pri izradi ove analize bez ocjene nivoa usklađenosti propisa u BiH sa odredbama ove Direktive.

Sankcije za predviđena krivična djela su određene krivičnim zakonima, te se sudovi pri njihovom izricanju moraju kretati u okviru zakonom previđenih granica, vodeći računa o svim olakšavajućim i otežavajućim okolnostima. U tabeli 1. je dat pregled krivično-pravnih sankcija definiranih krivičnim zakonima u BiH relevantnih za ovu analizu.

Tabela 1 – Pregled krivično-pravnih sankcija propisanih krivičnim zakonima u BiH za krivična djela protiv okoliša

Krivično-pravna sankcija Fizičko lice Pravno lice

Zatvor 30 dana – 12 godina Kazna zatvora se zamjenjuje drugom kaznom

Novčana kazna Prema pravilima o izricanju novčane kazne

5.000,00 KM - dvostruki iznos prouzrokovane imovinske štete, odnosno protupravno pribavljene imovinske koristi

Uslovna osuda Uslovnom osudom sud učinitelju krivičnog djela utvrđuje kaznu i istodobno određuje da se ona neće izvršiti ako osuđeni za vrijeme koje odredi sud, a koje ne može biti kraće od jedne ni duže od pet godina (vrijeme provjeravanja), ne učini novo krivično djelo.

Oslobođenje od kazne Sud može osloboditi od kazne učinitelja krivičnog djela kad to zakon izričito propisuje.

Opomena Sudska opomena se može ireći za određena krivična djela.

b) Osnove krivičnog postupka u BiH

Krivični postupak je definiran kao zakonom propisan postupak koji se vodi protiv fizičkog ili pravnog lica koje je osumnjičeno ili optuženo za počinjenje krivičnog djela ili više njih, a reguliran je zakonima o krivičnom postupku. Pojednostavljen pregled toka krivičnog postupka u BiH je dat u Slici 4, kojim se na vizuelan način prikazuje provođenje krivičnog postupka.

24

Slika 4 – Pojednostavljen pregled toka krivičnog postupka u BiH

Naime, nakon saznanja o počinjenom krivičnom djelu ili dostavljanja izvještaja o počinjenom krivičnom djelu, odnosno nakon provođenja predistražnih radnji, nadležni tužilac donosi naredbu o provođenju istrage ukoliko postoje osnovi sumnje da je počinjeno krivično djelo. Treba znati da svaki građanin ima pravo i obavezu prijaviti izvršenje krivičnog djela nadležnim organima ukoliko ima saznanja o njemu, pri čemu u zakonom preciziranim slučajevima neprijavljivanje krivičnog djela predstavlja krivično djelo. Nadležni organi su dužni postupati po podnesenim krivičnim prijavama, a ukoliko tužilac smatra da ne postoji dovoljno osnova za donošenje naredbe o pokretanju istrage o tome obavještava podnosioca krivične prijave, uz navođenje razloga za takvu odluku, sa poukom o pravu podnošenja pritužbe nadležnom uredu tužilaštva.

Nakon što nadležni tužilac prikupi dovoljno dokaza o postojanju osnovane sumnje da je osumnjičeni počinio krivično djelo koje mu se stavlja na teret on podiže optužnicu koja se proslijeđuje na potvrđivanje nadležnom sudu. Po potvrđivanju optužnice, krivični postupak se odvija pred nadležnim prvostepenim sudom, zavisno od toga da li optuženi priznaje krivično djelo ili ne, provodi se i dokazni postupak. Po okončanom dokaznom postupku prvostepeni sud donosi presudu koja može biti osuđujuća ili oslobađajuća. Na prvostepenu presudu se može izjaviti pravni lijek, odnosno žalba, po kojoj odlučuje nadležni drugostepeni sud. Presuda drugostepenog suda je pravosnažna, a osuđena osoba ima pravo podnošenja vanrednih pravnih lijekova u tačno određenim situacijama, kao i izjavljivanja apelacije Ustavnom sudu BiH, odnosno Evropskom sudu za ljudska prava.

2.2.1. Analiza učinkovitosti zaštite okoliša u BiH putem krivično-pravne zaštite u 2012. godini

Analiza krivično-pravne zaštite okoliša u BiH tokom 2012. godine je izvršena na osnovu podataka dostavljenih od strane deset kantonalnih i pet okružnih tužilaštava, te Tužilaštva BD BiH koji se odnose na krivična djela protiv okoliša u BiH tokom 2012. godine, a obuhvaćaju broj prijava u radu, istraga u radu, naredbi o nepokretanju istrage, obustava istrage, podignutih optužnica, potvrđenih optužnica, osuđujućih presuda sa izrečenom kaznom zatvora, osuđujućih presuda sa izrečenom novčanom kaznom, osuđujućih presuda sa izrečenom uslovnom osudom, osuđujućih presuda sa izrečenom opomenom, osuđujućih presuda gdje je osuđeni oslobođen kazne, odbijajućih presuda i oslobađajućih presuda.

Shodno dostavljenim podacima izvršena je analiza učinkovitosti zaštite okoliša u BiH putem krivično-pravne zaštite i to s aspekta sveobuhvatne učinkovitosti rada nadležnih tužilaštava u pogledu krivičnih djela protiv okoliša u BiH; raznovrsnosti krivičnih djela protiv okoliša u BiH za koje su potvrđene optužnice; i izrečenih krivičnopravne sankcije u predmetima po krivičnim djelima protiv okoliša u BiH.


a) Sveobuhvatna učinkovitost rada nadležnih tužilaštava u pogledu krivičnih djela protiv okoliša

Cilj analize ovog aspekta učinkovitosti krivično-pravne zaštite okoliša u BiH jeste sveobuhvatna analiza rada nadležnih tužilaštva u pogledu procesuiranja krivičnih djela protiv okoliša u BiH, što je izvršeno odvojeno za FBiH, RS i BD BiH. Svrha odvajanja jeste pokušaj usporedbe rada nadležnih tužilaštava u nedostatku podataka o učinkovitosti rada nadležnih tužilaštava u pogledu drugih krivičnih djela, a sve u cilju procjene učinkovitosti njihovog rada.

Grafikon 5 – Pregled učinkovitosti rada nadležnih tužilaštava FBiH u pogledu krivičnih djela protiv okoliša 2012. godine

Grafikon 6 – Pregled učinkovitosti rada nadležnih tužilaštava RS u pogledu krivičnih djela protiv okoliša 2012. godine

Grafikon 7 – Pregled učinkovitosti rada nadležnog tužilaštva BD BiH u pogledu krivičnih djela protiv okoliša 2012. godine

Analizom podataka prikazanih u grafikonima 5., 6. i 7. može se uočiti da nema bitnijih odstupanja u pogledu analiziranih elemenata između nadležnih tužilaštava u FBiH, RS i BD BiH. Shodno tome, može zaključiti da nadležna tužilaštva u BiH podjednako dobro obavljaju svoje obaveze.

Također se može uočiti da nadležna tužilaštva imaju u radu veliki broj predmeta po krivičnim djelima protiv okoliša u radu. Tužilaštva zaprimaju veliki broj prijava o mogućim krivičnim djelima, a istrage se provode u većem broju predmeta nego što je to prijavljeno.

26

Bitno je ukazati i da iz dostavljenih podataka proizilazi da je u većem broju predmeta tokom 2012. godine istraga obustavljena, odnosno u FBiH je u 256, RS 313, a BD BiH 11 predmeta donesena naredba o nepokretanju istrage. Kako god, bez dodatnih podataka nije moguće procijeniti koji su to razlozi uticali na neprovođenje odnosno obustavu istrage u ovim predmetima.

Iz analiziranih podataka, također, proizilazi da je razlika između podignutih i potvrđenih optužica je veoma mala što govori u prilog tome da u većini slučajeva optužnice koja nadležna tužilaštva pripreme i podignu, bivaju potvrđene, što upućuje na zaključak da nadležna tužilaštva zapravo na zadovoljavajući način provode istrage.

Nadalje, odnos između osuđujućih presuda, sa jedne strane, i odbijajućih i oslobađajućih presuda, sa druge strane, ukazuje na zaključak da nadležna tužilaštva u velikom broju slučajeva uspješno zastupaju potvrđene optužnice, što ponovno ukazuje na zaključak o zadovoljavajućem postupanju tužilaštava u predmetima zastupanja optužnica po krivičnim djelima protiv okoliša u BiH.

b) Raznovrsnost krivičnih djela protiv okoliša u BiH po potvrđenim optužnicama

Cilj analize ovog aspekta krivično – pravne zaštite okoliša u BiH tokom 2012. godine jeste provjera raspodjele krivičnih djela protiv okoliša u BiH i to u predmetima u kojima su potvrđene optužnice. U dijelu 2.2.1.a) ove analize je utvrđeno da se u najvećem broju slučajeva podignute optužnice i potvrđuju, što je ukazalo na kvalitet provođenja istrage od strane nadležnih tužilaštava u krivičnim predmetima protiv okoliša, a dalje će biti obrađeno pitanje identificiranja krivičnih djela za koje su potvrđene optužnice.

Grafikon 8 – Raznovrsnost krivičnih djela protiv okoliša u BiH po potvrđenim optužnicama 2012. godine

Iz podataka prezentiranih u grafikonu 8. se može zaključiti da je ubjedljivo najzastupljenije krivično djelo protiv okoliša po kojem su potvrđene optužnice Šumska krađa (član 316. KZ FBiH; 430. KZ RS i 310. KZ BD). Ovo krivično djelo je definirano na način da postoji ukoliko neko radi krađe obori u šumi jedno ili više stabala, a količina je oborenog drveta veća od dva kubna metra (KZ FBiH / BD) odnosno tri kubna metra (KZ RS). Propisane krivične sankcije za ovo djelo su kazna zatvora do tri godine (KZ FBiH/BD), odnosno novčana kazna ili kazna zatvora do dvije godine (KZ RS). Kvalificirani oblik ovog djela postoji ukoliko je djelo učinjeno s ciljem da se oboreno drvo proda; ili ako je količina oborenog drveta veća od pet kubnih metara (KZ FBiH / BD), odnosno osam kubnih metara (KZ RS); ili ako je djelo učinjeno u zaštićenoj šumi, nacionalnom parku ili drugoj šumi posebne namjene. U tim slučajevima propisana je kazna zatvora od jedne do pet godina (KZ FBiH / BD) odnosno kazna zatvora od šest mjeseci do pet godina i novčana kazna (KZ RS).

Činjenica da na samo jedno krivično djelo protiv okoliša u BiH otpada 96% potvrđenih optužnica sugerira ili da se ne prijavljuju druga krivična djela ili da nadležna tužilaštva na nejednak način tretiraju druga krivična djela protiv okoliša u BiH.

Dodatno zabrinjava činjenica da šumska krađa nije krivično djelo protiv okoliša u smislu Direktive (2008/99/EZ) o zaštiti okoliša putem krivičnog prava. Jedini izuzetak ovoj konstataciji predstavlja kvalificirani oblik krivičnog djela šumske krađe učinjeno u zaštićenoj šumi, nacionalnom parku ili drugoj šumi posebne namjene, u kom slučaju bi se ovo krivično djelo eventualno moglo smatrati krivičnim djelom u smislu člana 3(f), (g) i (h) Direktive. Ipak podaci o ovome kvalificiranom obliku nisu


bili dostupni prilikom izrade ove analize tako da se ne može sa sigurnošću utvrditi u kojem obimu je ovaj oblik krivičnog djela prisutan u praksi.

Krivičnim djelima protiv okoliša u BiH, koja istovremeno sadrže i elemente krivičnih djela iz Direktive (2008/99/EZ) o zaštiti okoliša putem krivičnog prava, mogla bi se smatrati krivična djela sadržana u sljedećim članovima 303., 304., 305., 314. i 321. KZFBiH; zatim članovima 415., 416., 418., 419., 420., 428., 429. i 434. KZ RS; i članovima 297., 298., 299., 308. i 315. KZ BD.

Međutim, analizom dostavljenih podataka utvrđeno je da u RS i BD BiH ova krivična djela niti u jednom predmetu nisu uzeta u rad od strane nadležnih tužilaštava, a usljed nedostatka detaljnijih podataka nemoguće je utvrditi tačan razlog ovakvom nalazu. U FBiH je ipak evidentirano 18 prijava u radu, 11 istraga u radu i 3 potvrđene optužnice za gore naznačena krivična djela. Shodno tome, broj potvrđenih optužnica po ovim krivičnim djelima čini 0,2% svih potvrđenih optužniva za krivična djela protiv okoliša u BiH.

Iz analiziranih podataka ne proizilazi da je donesena i jedna presuda vezana za krivična djela protiv okoliša u BiH u smislu Direktive (2008/99/EZ) o zaštiti okoliša putem krivičnog prava.

Svi analizirani podaci, zapravo govore o nepostojanju pravosnažno procesuiranih krivičnih djela protiv okoliša u BiH u smislu Direktive (2008/99/EZ) tokom 2012. godine, odnosno o veoma niskom procentu radnji poduzetih u smislu procesuiranja ovih krivičnih djela od strane nadležnih tužilaštava u BiH.

c) Vrste izrečenih krivično-pravnih sankcija u okončanim predmetima po krivičnim djelima protiv okoliša u BiH

Svrha i cilj analize dostavljenih podataka sa aspekta izrečenih krivično-pravnih sankcija u predmetima procesuiranih krivičnih djela protiv okoliša u BiH jeste utvrditi vrstu i broj izrečenih sankcija, s obzirom da je u dijelu 2.2.1.a) ove analize utvrđeno da je u 2012. godini veliki broj potvrđenih optužnica rezultirao osuđujućim presudama.

Grafikon 9 – Vrste izrečenih krivično-pravnih sankcija u procesuiranim predmetima krivičnih djela protiv okoliša u BiH 2012. godine

Podaci prikazani u grafikonu 9. ukazuju na zaključak da nadležni sudovi u apsolutnoj većini predmeta koji rezultiraju osuđujućim presudama izriču uslovnu osudu, dok se relativno rijetko odlučuju na izricanje kazne zatvora odnosno novčane kazne. Postavlja se opravdano pitanje da li se izricanjem ovih krivično-pravnih sankcija ispunjava svrha kažnjavanja, a u konačnici i adekvatna zaštita okliša. Kako god, obzirom na nedostatak podataka u pogledu recidiva u činjenju krivičnih dijela, nije moguće ni izvršiti objektivnu analizu učinkovitosti izrečenih krivično-pravnih sankcija.

2.2.2. Zaključak

Inicijalna analiza dostavljenih podataka o zaštiti okoliša putem krivično-pravne zaštite u BiH ukazuju da nadležna tužilaštva u BiH na zadovoljavajući i učinkovit način provode istrage, podižu optužnice i iste zastupaju pred nadležnim sudovima. Ipak, nešto detaljnijom analizom može se doći do zaključka da nadležna tužilaštva veliku pažnju posvećuju samo jednom krivičnom djelu protiv okoliša u BiH, i to

28

krivično djelo „Šumska krađa“. Međutim, usljed nedstatka više podataka, nije moguće utvrditi razlog ovakvom postupanju.

Analizirajući dostavljene podatke i sa aspekta sadržaja Direktive (2008/99/EZ) o zaštiti okoliša putem krivičnog prava, čini se da ne postoje procesuirana krivična djela zaštite okoliša u smislu ove Direktive u 2012. godini u BiH, dok je procenat tih krivičnih djela koja su u fazi procesuiranja zanemariv.

Nadalje, analiza izrečenih krivično-pravnih sankcija ukazuje na izricanje najvećeg broja uslovih osuda, što s obzirom na visok broj počinjenih krivičnih djela protiv okoliša dovodi u pitanje adekvatnost izrečenih sankcija. Međutim, usljed nedostatka dodatnih podataka, posebno onih o recidivima nije moguće izvesti objektivan i adekvatan zaključak u tom pravcu.

U svrhu unaprjeđenja postojeće situacije mogle bi se primijeniti sljedeće mjere:

- izvršiti harmoniziranje propisa u BiH sa Direktivom (2008/99/EZ) o zaštiti okoliša putem krivičnog prava;

- sprovesti obuku tužioca u nadležnim tužilaštvima o načinu i značaju procesuiranja počinilaca krivičnih djela protiv okoliša u BiH; i

- sprovesti obuku sudija u nadležnim sudovima o značaju adekvatne krivično-pravne zaštite u sistemu zaštite okoliša.

2.3. Prekršajno-pravna zaštita okoliša u BiH u 2012. godini

Pored prethodno navedendih vidova pravne zaštite okoliša, ona se ostvaruje i putem prekršajno-pravne zaštite, pri čemu su odredbe o prekršajima u BiH sadržane u Zakonu o prekršajima FBiH,49 Zakonu o prekršajima RS50 i Zakonu o prekršajima BD.51 Prekršaji, kao i sankcije za iste u oblasti okoliša su sadržani u relevantnim okolišnim zakonima u BiH, čiji je pregled dat u Prilogu 1. ove analize. Kako god, u svrhe ove analize je u tabeli 2. izložen i pregled propisanih prekršajnih sankcija za fizička i pravna lica po relevantnim zakonima u BiH.

49 Zakon o prekršajima FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 31/06).50 Zakon o prekršajima RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 34/06, 1/09 i 29/10).51 Zakon o prekršajima BD BiH („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, broj: 24/07).


Tabela 2 – Pregled prekršajnih sankcija po zakonima relevantnim za pitanja zaštite okliša u BiH5253

Zakon Član(ovi) Propisane prekršajne sankcije

Fizička lica52 Pravna lica53

FBiHZakon o zaštiti okoliša FBiH 116 300,00 do 1.500,00 KM 3.000,00 do 15.000,00 KM

Zakon o vodama FBiH 204 – 206 100,00 do 5.000,00 KM 2.000,00 do 50.000,00 KM

Zakon o upravljanju otpadom FBiH 53 500,00 do 2.000,00 KM 1.000,00 do 10.000,00 KM

Zakon o zaštiti zraka FBiH 35 i 36 500,00 do 2.000,00 KM 500,00 do 10.000,00 KM

Zakon o zaštiti prirode FBiH 232 235 50,00 do 3.000,00 KM 500,00 do 15.000,00 KM

RS

Zakon o zaštiti životne sredine RS 132 i 133 1.000,00 do 3.000,00 КМ 1.000,00 do 20.000,00 КМ

Zakon o vodama RS 210 – 213 500,00 do 18.000,00 КМ 3.000,00 do 30.000,00 КМ

Zakon o upravljanju otpadom RS 56 500,00 do 10.000,00 KM 1.000,00 do 10.000,00 KM

Zakon o zaštiti vazduha RS 75 – 78 500,00 dо 3.000,00 КМ i zaštitne mjere

1.000,00 dо 20.000,00 KM i zaštitne mjere

Zakon o zaštiti prirode RS 46 100,00 do 1.000,00 КМ 1.000,00 do 10.000,00 КМ

BD BiH

Zakon o zaštiti životne sredine BD 112 500,00 do 2.000,00 KM 1.000,00 do 10.000,00 KM

Zakon o zaštiti voda BD 63 100,00 do 1.700,00 KM 1.000,00 do 10.000,00 KM

Zakon o upravljanju otpadom BD 56 500,00 - 10.000,00 KM 1.000,00 - 10.000,00 KM

Zakon o zaštiti zraka BD 45 100,00 do 15.000,00 KM 1.500,00 do 15.000,00 KM

Zakon o zaštiti prirode BD 46 100,00 do 1.000,00 KM 1.000,00 do 10.000,00 KM

Propisivanjem prekršajnih sankcija u relevantnim okolišnim zakonima u BiH, te primjenom odredbi o prekršajima sadržanim u prekršajnim zakonima, u pravne sisteme entiteta i BD BiH se uvode, a u praksi primjenjuju, „kaznene odredbe“ sadržane u nizu okolišnih direktiva EU. Na primjer, odredba člana 36., stav 2. Direktive (2008/98/EZ) Evropskog parlamenta i vijeća od 19.11.2008. godine o otpadu i ukidanju određenih direktiva54 sadrži obavezu propisivanja kazni koje moraju biti učinkovite, razmjerne i odvraćajuće u slučaju kršenja materije sadržane u Direktivi, te primjenu istih u praksi. Upravo ova obaveza je uvedena i u pravni sistem BiH, kroz relevantne zakone entiteta i BD BiH, odnosno kroz zakone o upravljanju otpadom, što se primjenjuje i ostvaruje kroz primjenu odgovarajućih zakona o prekršajima.

a) Osnove prekršajnog postupka

Prekršaj se definira kao kršenje javnog poretka, utvrđeno zakonom ili drugim propisom za koje su određena obilježja i za koje su propisane sankcije.55 Prekršaj može biti počinjen činjenjem ili nečinjenjem i to od strane kako fizičkih, tako i pravnih lica.

Sudovi u BiH koji su nadležni za procesuiranje prekršajnih predmeta su u prvom stepenu mjesno nadležni općinski sud u FBiH, odnosno osnovni sud u RS i BD BiH, te mjesno nadležni kantonalni sudovi u FBiH, odnosno okružni sudovi u RS i Apelacijski sud u BD BiH, kao drugostepeni sudovi.

52 Podaci sadržani u ovoj koloni se odnose i na odgovorna lica u pravnom licu.53 Podaci sadržani u ovoj koloni se odnose i na poduzetnike i zavode.54 SL L 312, 22.11.2008.55 Član 2. Zakona o prekršajima FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, br. 31/06); Član 1. Zakona o prekršajima RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, br.

34/06, 1/09 i 29/10); Član 3. Zakona o prekršajima BD BiH („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, br. 24/07).

30

Slika 5 – Pojednostavljen pregled toka prekršajnog postupka u BiH

Prekršajni postupak je moguće započeti izdavanjem prekršajnog naloga od strane ovlaštenog organa ili podnošenjem zahtjeva za pokretanje prekršajnog postupka nadležnom prvostepenom sudu. Prekršajni nalog se izdaje od strane ovlaštenog organa, nakon što isti utvrdi da je počinjen prekršaj naznačen u relevantnom propisu, a pored naznake prekršaja i relevantnih zakonskih odredbi, sadrži i određenu prekršajnu sankciju te uputstvo okrivljenom da ima pravo podnijeti zahtjev za sudsko odlučivanje o prekršajnom nalogu.56 Pored toga, prekršajni nalog sadrži i naziv suda i rok u kojem okrivljeni treba podnijeti zahtjev za sudsko odlučivanje o prekršajnom nalogu, ukoliko se za isto odluči.

Okrivljeni u prekršajnom postupku može prihvatiti odgovornost za prekršaj tako što će platiti novčanu kaznu, a ukoliko ne zatraži sudsko odlučivanje o predmetu smatrat će se da je prihvatio odgovornost propuštanjem i prekršajni nalog postaje konačan i izvršan.

Postupak pred sudom se također pokreće na dva načina, i to pokretanjem postupka zahtjevom od strane podnosioca zahtjeva u slučajevima kada nije moguće izdati prekršajni nalog ili zahtjevanjem okrivljenog za prekršaj kojem je izdan prekršajni naloga da o njegovoj odgovornosti za počinjeni prekršaj odluči sud.

Prekršajni postupak se obično okončava na jednom usmenom pretresu, a završava donošenjem rješenja o prekršaju kojim se može utvrditi da se prekršajni postupak obustavlja,57 da je okrivljeni odgovoran zbog propuštanja,58 ili da se okrivljeni oglašava odgovornim za prekršaj.59 Protiv rješenja o prekršaju se može izjaviti žalba nadležnom kantonalnom sudu u FBiH, odnosno okružnom sudu u RS, tj. Apelacijskom sudu u BD BiH.

2.3.1. Analiza prekršano-pravne zaštite okoliša u BiH

S obzirom na prikupljene podatke od nadležnih institucija, pri izradi ove analize nije bilo moguće izvršiti analizu izdatih prekršajnih naloga prihvaćenih od strane okrivljenog, što bi predstavljalo prvi korak u prekršajnom postupku kako je to prikazano u Slici 6. Zapravo, nije moguće izvršiti ni detaljnu analizu odluka nadležnih sudova u vezi sa prekršajnim predmetima isključivo za 2012. godinu, obzirom da su dostavljeni podaci za period od 2011. – 2013. godine. Kako god, iz dostavljenih podataka

56 Detaljan sadržaj prekršajnog naloga je propisan članom 34. Zakona o prekršajima FBiH; članom 33. Zakona o prekršajima RS; i članom 35. Zakona o prekršajima BD BiH.

57 Član 54. Zakona o prekršajima FBiH; član 54. Zakona o prekršajima RS; i član 61. Zakona o prekršajima BD BIH.58 Član 55. Zakona o prekršajima FBiH; član 55. Zakona o prekršajima RS; i član 62. Zakona o prekršajima BD BiH. 59 Član 56. Zakona o prekršajima FBiH; član 56. Zakona o prekršajima RS; i član 63. Zakona o prekršajima BD BiH.


je moguće utvrditi da većina nadležnih sudova u BiH nije dostavila tražene podatke, dok je manje od polovine sudova koji su dostavili podatke potvrdilo postojanje predmeta po prekršajima iz oblasti zaštite okoliša, kako je to i prikazano u grafikonu 10. Pored toga, niti jedan drugostepeni sud nije dostavio podatke u ovom pravcu.

Grafikon 10 – Pregled dostavljenih podataka

Imajući u vidu nedostatak podataka za izradu relevantne i objektivne analize u pogledu prekršajno-pravne zaštite okoliša u BiH tokom 2012. godine, jedina mogućnost je bila dati pregled broja prekršajnih predmeta vođenih prema pojedinim zakonima koji se tiču okoliša u BiH.

Grafikon 11 – Broj prekršajnih predmeta prema okolišnom zakonodavstvu u BiH

Iz grafikona 11. se može vidjetii da u BiH postoji veoma mali broj predmeta po prekršajima iz okolišnih zakona te da se većina predmeta odnosi na prekršaje sadržane u Zakonu o vodama FBiH.60 U svim predmetima za koje su podaci dostavljeni, zahtjev je usvojen, osim u jednom u kojem je odbačen.

2.3.2. Zaključak

Zbog ograničenosti dostavljenih podataka, izvođenje zaključaka o prekršajno-pravnoj zaštiti okoliša pred sudovima u BiH predstavlja veliki izazov. Zapravo, ono što je evidentno iz dobivenih podataka jeste da ne postoji veliki broj predmeta pred sudovima po prekršajima iz okolišnih zakona u BiH, odnosno ne postoje podaci o takvim predmetima, čiji uzrok je prilikom izrade ove analize ostao nepoznat. Nadalje, prema dobivenim podacima, u onim slučajevima gdje takvi predmeti postoje pred sudovima, uočen je veliki disparitet u pogledu zastupljenosti pojedinih zakona u BiH, gdje se apsolutna većina predmeta odnosi na prekršaje iz Zakona o vodama FBiH

Samo je za pretpostaviti da je u stvarnosti broj predmeta po prekršajima iz okolišnih zakona u BiH veći nego što je to ovdje prikazano. Također, u ovu analizu nisu bili uvršteni predmeti po kantonalnim,

60 Zakon o vodama FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 70/06).

32

gradskim i općinskim propisima iz oblasti zaštite okoliša na koje se sigurno može naići u praksi (npr. Općinski sud u Goraždu je potvrdio postojanje ovakvih predmeta).

Imajući u vidu zaključak da postoji relativno mali broj predmeta pred sudovima po prekršajima iz okolišnih zakona u BiH, te da tamo gdje postoje, isti su gotovo u potpunosti ograničeni na prekršaje sadržane u Zakonu o vodama FBiH, koji sadrži strožije novčane kazne, moglo bi se zaključiti da su propisane prekršajne sankcije nedovoljno stroge. Shodno tome, bilo bi potrebno izvršiti reformu zakona o prekršajima na način da se novčane kazne mogu izdati u procentima ukupnog prometa okrivljenog lica polazeći od pretpostavke da veći promet može prouzrokovati veće zagađenje okoliša. Na ovaj način bi se podjednako uticalo i na velike i male zagađivače da ne prouzrokuju zagađenje okoliša, odnosno da ne krše relevantne odredbe okolišnih propisa u BiH.

Literatura:1. Bjelajac Ž. i dr., Ekološka politika EU i njen krivično-pravni okvir, MP 4, 2011.;2. Direktiva (2003/4/EZ) Evropskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 28.01.2003. godine o javnom pristupu

informacijama o okolišu i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive Vijeća 90/313/EEZ (SL L 41, 14.02.2003);3. Direktiva (2003/35/EZ) Evropskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 26.05.2003. godine o osiguravanju sudjelovanja

javnosti u izradi određenih planova i programa koji se odnose na okoliš i o izmjeni direktiva Vijeća 85/337/EEZ i 96/61/EZ s obzirom na sudjelovanje javnosti i pristup pravosuđu (SL L 156, 25.06.2003);

4. Direktiva (2008/99/EZ) Evropskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 19.11.2008. godine o zaštiti okoliša Konvencija o pristupu informacijama, učešću javnosti u odlučivanju i pristupu pravosuđu u pitanjima okoliša („Službeni glasnik BiH – MU“, broj: 8/08);

5. Pravni leksikon, Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, Zagreb, 2006.;6. putem krivičnog prava (SL L 328, 06.12.2008);7. Priručnik za praktičnu primjenu Aarhuske konvencije u Bosni i Hercegovini, OSCE Mission to Bosnia

and Herzegovina, ISBN No. 978-92-9234-019-3.


PRILOG 1.

Zakoni na nivou Bosne i Hercegovine

1. Konvencija o pristupu informacijama, učešću javnosti u odlučivanju i pristupu pravdi u okolišnim pitanjima („Službeni glasnik BiH – MU“, broj: 8/08);

2. Zakon o slobodi pristupa informacijama („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 28/00, 45/06, 102/09 i 62/11);3. Zakon o Vijeću ministara Bosne i Hercegovine („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 30/03, 42/03, 81/06, 76/07,

81/07 i 24/08);4. Zakon o upravi („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 32/02 i 102/09);5. Zakon o ministarstvima i drugim organima uprave Bosne i Hercegovine („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj:

5/03, 42/03, 26/04, 42/04, 45/06, 88/07, 35/09, 59/09 i 103/09); 6. Zakon o Sudu BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, br. 49/09 – prečišćeni tekst, 74/09 i 97/09);7. Zakon o državnoj službi i institucijama Bosne i Hercegovine („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 12/02, 19/02,

8/03, 35/05, 4/04, 17/04, 26/04, 37/04, 48/05, 2/06, 32/07, 43/09, 8/10 i 40/12);8. Zakon o upravnom postupku („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 29/02, 12/04, 88/07, 93/09 i 41/13);9. Zakon o upravnim sporovima („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 19/02, 88/07, 83/08 i 74/10);10. Krivični zakon BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, br. 32/03, 37/03, 54/04, 61/04, 30/05, 53/06, 55/06, 32/07 i 8/10)

;11. Zakon o krivičnom postupku BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, br. 36/03, 26/04, 63/04, 13/05, 48/05, 46/06,

76/06, 29/07, 32/07, 53/07, 76/07, 15/08, 58/08, 12/09, 16/09, 93/09 i 72/13);12. Zakon o zaštiti zdravlja bilja („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 23/03);13. Zakon o zaštiti novih sorti bilja u BiH; („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 14/10 i 32/13);14. Zakon o sjemenu i sadnom materijalu poljoprivrednih biljaka u BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 03/05) ;15. Zakon o veterinarstvu BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 34/02);16. Zakon o zaštiti dobrobiti životinja („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 25/09);17. Zakon o poljoprivredi, prehrani i ruralnom razvoju BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 50/08) ;18. Zakon o genetski modificiranim organizmima („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 23/09);19. Zakon o fitofarmaceutskim sredstvima BiH („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 49/04);20. Zakon o koncesijama („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 32/02 i 56/04);21. Zakon o radijacijskoj i nuklearnoj sigurnosti („Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 88/07); 22. Zakon o statistici BiH (Sl. glasnik BiH“, broj: 26/04) .

Zakoni na nivou Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine

1. Zakon o slobodi pristupa informacijama FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 32/01 i 48/11);2. Zakon o organizaciji organa uprave u FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 35/05);3. Zakon o federalnim ministarstvima i drugim tijelima federalne uprave („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj:

58/02, 19/03, 38/05, 2/06 i 61/06);4. Zakon o državnoj službi u FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 29/03, 23/04, 39/04, 54/04, 67/05, 8/06 i

4/12);5. Zakon o sudovima u FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, br. 22/06, 63/10, 72/10 i 7/13);6. Zakon o principima lokalne samouprave u FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 49/06 i 51/09);7. Zakon o upravnom postupku („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 2/98 i 48/99);8. Zakon o upravnim sporovima („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 9/05); 9. Krivični zakon FBiH („Sl novine FBiH“, br. 36/03, 37/03, 21/04, 69/04, 18/05, 42/10 i 42/11);10. Zakon o krivičnom postupku FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, br. 35/03, 37/03, 56/03, 78/04, 28/05, 55/06,

27/07, 53/07, 9/09, 12/10 i 8/13);11. Zakon o prekršajima FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 31/06);12. Zakon o zaštiti okoliša („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 33/03 i 38/09);13. Zakon o Fondu za zaštitu okoliša FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 33/03);14. Zakon o zaštiti prirode („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 33/03);15. Zakon o vodama („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 70/06);

34

16. Uredba o šumama („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 83/09, 26/10, 38/10 i 62/11);17. Zakon o uvjetima, načinu obavljanja djelatnosti rezanja drveta („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 27/97 i

25/06);18. Zakon o sjemenu i sadnom materijalu šumskih i hortikulturnih vrsta drveća i grmlja („Sl. novine

FBiH“, broj: 71/05 i 8/10);19. Zako o zaštiti zraka („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 33/03 i 4/10);20. Zakon o veterinarstvu („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 46/00);21. Zakon o lovstvu („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 4/06 i 8/10);22. Zakon o slatkovodnom ribarstvu („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 64/04); 23. Zakon o poljoprivredi („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 88/07 i 4/10);24. Zakon o poljoprivrednom zemljištu („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 52/09);25. Zakon o zaštiti od jonizirajućih zračenja i radijacionoj sigurnosti („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 15/99);26. Zakon o rudarstvu FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 26/10);27. Zakon o geološkim istraživanjima („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 9/10);28. Zakon o prostornom planiranju i korištenju zemljišta na nivou FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 2/06,

72/07, 32/08, 4/10, 13/10 i 45/10);29. Zakon o koncesijama („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 40/02 i 61/06);30. Zakon o električnoj energiji FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 66/13);31. Zakon o koristenju obnovljivih izvora energije i efikasne kogeneracije („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj:

70/13);32. Zakon o upravljanju otpadom („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 33/03 i 72/09);33. Zakon o Nacionalnom parku „Una“ („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 44/08);34. Zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 46/10);35. Zakon o statistici FBiH („Sl. novine FBiH“, broj: 63/03 i 9/09).

Zakoni na nivou Republike Srpske

1. Zakon o slobodi pristupa informacijama RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 20/01);2. Zakon o republičkoj upravi („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 118/08, 11/09, 74/10, 86/10 i 24/12);3. Zakon o lokalnoj samoupravi („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 101/04, 42/05 i 118/05);4. Zakon o opštem upravnom postupku („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 13/02, 87/07 i 50/10); 5. Zakon o sudovima RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, br. 37/12);6. Zakon o upravnim sporovima („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 109/05); 7. Krivični zakon RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, br. 49/03, 70/06, 73/10 i 1/12);8. Zakon o krivičnom postupku RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, br. 53/12);9. Zakon o prekršajima RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 34/06, 1/09 i 29/10);10. Zakon o zaštiti životne sredine („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 71/12);11. Zakon o Fondu i finansiranju zaštitu životne sredine („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 51/02 i 53/07);12. Zakon o zaštiti prirode („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 50/02, 34/08 i 59/08, prečišćeni tekst – 113/08);13. Zakon o vodama („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 50/06 i 92/09);14. Zakon o šumama („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 75/08);15. Zakon o reproduktivnom materijalu šumskog drveća („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 60/09);16. Zakon o zaštiti zdravlja bilja u RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 25/09);17. Zakon o sredstvima za zaštitu bilja („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 52/10);18. Zakon o zaštiti vazduha („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 53/02);19. Zakon o zaštiti i dobrobiti životinja („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 111/08);20. Zakon o veterinarstvu u RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 42/08);21. Zakon o lovstvu („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 60/09);22. Zakon o ribarstvu („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 4/02 i 58/09);23. Zakon o pčelarstvu („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 52/10);24. Zakon o poljoprivredi („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 70/06, 20/07, 86/07 i 71/09);25. Zakon o poljoprivrednom zemljištu („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 93/06, 86/07 i 14/10);26. Zakon o organskoj proizvodnji hrane („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 75/04 i 71/09);27. Zakon o genetički modificiranim organizmima („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 103/08);28. Zakon o upravljanju otpadom („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 53/02 i 65/08); 29. Zakon o zaštiti od nejonizirajućih zračenja („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 2/05);30. Zakon o kemikalijama („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 25/09);31. Zakon o biocidima („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 37/09);32. Zakon o uređenju prostora i građenju („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 40/13);33. Zakon o koncesijama („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 59/13);34. Zakon o energetici („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 49/09);


35. Zakon o rudarstvu („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 59/12);36. Zakon o geološkim istraživanjima („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 51/04);37. Zakon o nacionalnim parkovima („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 75/10);38. Zakon o Nacionalnom parku Sutjeska („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj 121/12); 39. Zakon o meteorološkoj i hidrološkoj djelatnosti RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 20/00);40. Zakon o statistici RS („Sl. glasnik RS“, broj: 85/03).

Zakoni na niovu Brčko Distrikta BiH

1. Zakon o Vladi Brčko Distrikta BiH („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, broj: 19/07, 36/07, 38/07, 2/08, 17/08, 23/08, 14/10 i 28/12);

2. Zakon o državnoj službi u organima uprave Brčko distrikta BiH („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, broj: 28/06, 29/06, 19/07, 2/08, 44/08, 25/09, 26/09 i 04/13);

3. Zakon o sudovima BD („Sl. glasnik BD“, br. 19/07, 20/07, 39/09 i 31/11);4. Zakon o upravnom postupku Brčko Distrikta BiH („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, broj: 3/00, 5/00, 9/02, 8/03,

8/04, 25/05, 8/07, 10/07, 19/07, 2/08, 36/09 i 48/11 – preciscen tekst);5. Zakon o upravnim sporovima („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, broj: 4/00 i 1/01); 6. Krivični zakon BD („Sl. glasnik BD“, br. 33/13 – prečišćeni tekst);7. Zakon o krivičnom postupku BD („Sl. glasnik BD“, br. 33/13 – prečišćeni tekst);8. Zakon o prekršajima BD BiH („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, broj: 24/07);9. Zakon o zaštiti životne sredine („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, broj: 24/04, 1/05, 19/07 i 9/09);10. Zakon o zaštiti prirode („Sl. glasnik BD BiH“, broj: 24/04, 1/05, 19/07 i 9/09);11. Zakon o zaštiti voda Brčko Distrikta BiH („Sl. glasnik BD“ , broj: 25/04 i 19/07);12. Zakon o slatkovodnom ribarstvu („Sl. glasnik BD“, broj: 35/05 i 19/07);13. Zakon o šumama Brčko Distrikta BiH („Sl. glasnik BD“, broj: 14/10);14. Zakon o zaštiti zraka („Sl. glasnik BD“, broj: 25/04, 1/05, 19/07 i 9/09); 15. Zakon o poljoprivrednom zemljištu („Sl. glasnik BD“, broj: 32/04, 20/06 i 19/07);16. Zakon o prostornom planiranju i građenju („Sl. glasnik BD“, broj: 29/08);17. Zakon o koncesijama („Sl. glasnik BD“, broj: 41/06, 19/07 i 2/08);18. Zakon o upravljanju otpadom („Sl. glasnik BD“, broj: 25/04, 1/05, 19/07, 2/08 i 9/09).

Analysis of Court Decisions in the Area of Environmental Protection in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2012

Authors:Mirna Delalić

Ratko PilipovićDamir Petrović

Any opinion or statement contained in this publication, which has not been indicated explicitly as originating from the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, does not necessarily reflect the official policy of the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina.The OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina has supported the printing of this material. This report has been developed with the technical and administrative support provided within the project titled: “Strengthening the Rule of Law through Improved Access to Judiciary in Environmental Matters”, funded by the German Government and with the participation of the Environment and Security Initiative.

Foreword

National implementation reports on Aarhus Convention and training workshops for judges and prosecutors on EU environmental law and Aarhus Convention identified the need for a more detailed analysis of court decisions in the environmental protection field. Alhough first of its kind in BiH, this analysis cannot be considered as an exhaustive review of sectoral jurisprudence due to the lack of comprehensive data from courts and prosecutors’ offices. Its goal is to inspire a wider dicussion on environmental protection from the aspect of administrative, criminal and misdemeanor law. We hope it will serve as a reference material for training events organized by the Judicial and Prosecutorial Training Centres, and we thank the Department of Judicial Administration of the HJPC and the Aarhus Centres Network for their assistance.

Project Team

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 431. THE BiH NATIONAL STRUCTURE AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FROM THE ASPECT OF

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ...........................................................................................................452. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT ...................................................49

2.1. Administrative and Legal Environment Protection from the Aspect of the Rights Set Forth in the Aarhus Convention ...........................................................................................................................492.1.1. Right to Access Information .............................................................................49

2.1.1.1. Obligation of Public Authorities to Act Upon Requests for Access to Information..502.1.1.2. Exemptions from the Obligation to Deliver Information .................................51

a) Exemption from Publicising in Regard to Public Authorities’ Functions ...............51b) Exemption for Confidential Commercial Information ............................................52c) Exemption for the Protection of Personal Privacy .......................................53

2.1.1.3. Obligation to Test Public Interest .............................................................542.1.2. Right to Public Participation in Decision-Making ....................................................542.1.3. Right to Access Justice ...................................................................................552.1.4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................57

2.2. Protection of Environment through Criminal Law in BiH ......................................................58a) Crimes against Environment in BiH ................................................................................58b) Basics of Criminal Procedure in BiH ...............................................................................60

2.2.1. Environmental Protection Efficiency Analysis through Criminal Law in BiH in 2012 .........60a) Overall Efficiency of Relevant Prosecutor’s Offices in Terms of Crimes against

Environment .......................................................................................................................61b) Diversity of Crimes against Environment in BiH per Confirmed Indictments .....................62c) Types of Criminal Sanction Pronounced in Completed Cases of Crimes against

Environment in BiH .............................................................................................................632.2.2. Conclusion ...................................................................................................64

2.3. Protection of Environment through Minor Offence Law in BiH in 2012 ...................................64a) Basics of the Minor Offence Procedure ...........................................................................65

2.3.1. Environmental Protection Analysis through Minor Offence Law in BiH ........................672.3.2. Conclusion ...................................................................................................68

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................68APPENDIX 1 ......................................................................................................................69

43Analysis of Court Decisions in the Area of Environmental Protection in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2012

INTRODUCTION

The environment, as a natural surrounding encompassing the air, water, soil, flora and fauna, climate and their overall interdependence and interaction and cultural heritage created by men, including cities and other settlements and infrastructural, industrial and other facilities, requires special protection at both international and state and local levels. Environmental protection and improvement are amongst the most prominent problems faced by modern society. Fast scientific and technological developments, the application of new and powerful energy sources, the construction of a large number of industrial facilities and the creation of large urban areas, have led, particularly in the past several decades, to extremely high levels of pollution of basic natural resources, to a misbalance in the ‘man-environment’ harmony and to serious threats to natural conditions needed for environmental preservation. This ultimately brings into question the survival of men and planet Earth as we know it. This is exactly why the importance of environmental protection imposes a challenge to every society and country including the international community, individual states and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) itself.

The United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (CoE) have endorsed a spectrum of documents referring to environmental protection, including the UN Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters i.e. the so-called Aarhus Convention which represents one of the core legal instruments in the fight of individuals and the overall public to preserve a healthy environment. The significance of rights set forth in the Aarhus Convention lies in the fact that access to information is key to exercising any right, including the right to protect the environment, for only an informed person can respond adequately in every life situation. BiH is a signatory to most of the international documents pertaining to environmental protection, having joined the Aarhus Convention on 15 September 20081 thus committing to act upon the provisions contained therein. In addition, the provisions of the Aarhus Convention have been largely incorporated into national environment-related legislation2.

It is important to stress the EU-level environmental acquis communautaire3 which provides for many directives, decrees and decisions regulating the protection of particular environmental matters4, in compliance with the Aarhus Convention. For BiH, the relevance of legislation and the overall acquis communautaire lies in the fact that the unique EU membership commitment implies that all countries aspiring to join the EU must consolidate their national regulations, rules and procedures with the acquis communautaire in order to uphold the effect of the body of regulations contained therein. BiH, as a country aspiring towards EU membership, signed on 26 June 2008 in Luxemburg the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the EU and its member states, which was ratified by the BiH Presidency on 06 November 20085. This gained BiH the status of so-called “potential candidate”. Though the SAA has not taken effect yet, having in mind that the EU expects BiH to meet additional conditions6, its commitment to legislative consolidation, provided for in Article 70 of the SAA, has been in effect since the signing date.

1 Official Gazette of BiH, No. 8/08.2 FBiH Law on Environmental Protection (Official Gazette of FBiH, Nos. 33/03 and 38/09); RS Law on Environmental

Protection (Official Gazette of RS, No. 71/12) and Law on Environmental Protection of BD BiH (Official Gazette of BD BiH, Nos. 24/04, 1/05, 19/07 and 09/09).

3 EU legal heritage i.e. set of rights and commitments of member states within the EU. Formally, the acquis includes: the so-called primary law (founding agreements); international agreements, international customary law and EU general legal principles; secondary law, i.e. legislation passed by EU institutions (Rules, Directives and Decisions); EU Court of Justice case-law; all other commitments of the member states within the EU activities.

4 At the horizontal sector level – rules applicable upon all other sectors – a total of 7 directives were passed; air quality sector – 8 directives and 1 decree; waste management sector – 12 directives and 1 decree; water quality sector – 18 directives; nature protection – 3 directives and 2 decrees; industrial pollution – 9 directives and 3 decrees; chemicals – 5 directives and 3 decrees; noise – 3 directives; and EU emissions trading system – 6 decisions, 4 directives and 4 decrees.

5 Official Gazette of BiH, No. 10/08. 6 The European Court of Human Rights judgment in the Sejdić and Finci against Bosnia and Herzegovina case.

44

The deadline for BiH to consolidate its regulations with the EU acquis commenced in 2008 and by 2014 the consolidation would have expanded to include all elements of the acquis, including the environment. In that regard, we should particularly emphasise directives to be consolidated with the BiH legislation pertaining to environmental protection, specifically the Directive 2003/4/EZ on Public Access to Environmental Information7, Directive 2003/35/EZ on Ensuring Public Participation in the Development of Certain Environmental Plans and Programmes8, Directive 2008/99/EZ on Environmental Protection via Criminal Law9, as well as penalty provisions contained in many other directives.

Having in mind the aforementioned, particularly the fact that BiH is a signatory of numerous international environmental conventions, it is clear that the right to healthy environment falls under a constitutional category in BiH, despite the fact that the BiH Constitution does not regulate this right directly. Actually, under the BiH Constitution, the right to life is a fundamental human right implying the right to healthy environment. The situation is absolutely identical at the level of the Federation of BiH (FBiH) i. e. its cantons, whereas Republika Srpska (RS) regulates this issue separately by its Constitution in the manner in which “a man is entitled to a healthy environment. Everyone shall, under the law, protect and enhance the environment to the best of his or her ability”10.

7 Directive (2003/4/EZ) of the European Parliament and Council of 28 January 2003 on Public Access to Environmental Information suspending the effect of Directive 90/313/EEZ (OG 41, 14 Feb 2003).

8 Directive (2003/35/EZ) of the European Parliament and Council of 26 May 2003 o Ensuring Public Participation in Development of Certain Environmental Plans and Programmes and amendments to Directives 85/337/EEZ and 96/61/EZ having in mind public participation and access to justice (OG 156, 25 June 2003).

9 Directive (2008/99/EZ) of the European Parliament and Council of 19 November 2008 on Environmental Protection via Criminal Law (OG 328, 06 Dec 2008).

10 RS Constitution, Art. 35.


1. THE BiH NATIONAL STRUCTURE AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FROM THE ASPECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

At first glance, it is clear that environmental protection is a complicated problem to regulate in BiH. Therefore, in order to better understand this matter, we must present a brief overview of the BiH national structure as well as that of the relevant institutions.

There are several layers of government in BiH. Though with differing constitutional arrangements, they function in mutual interdependence. At the State level, authority has been established within the legislative, executive and judicial branches, while lower levels of authority operate within separate administrative units – the two Entities of the FBiH and the RS, as well asthe Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BD BiH). The FBiH is further divided administratively into ten cantons, unlike the RS. Units of local self-government are identical to the State level, comprising cities, municipalities and local communities.

Legislative bodies at all levels of authority have enacted general legal documents or laws regulating environmental protection in detail; t heiroverview is given in Appendix 1 of this Analysis.

Along with the need to familiarise oneself with environmental protection legislation, one must also obtain a clear picture of the BiH institutions in charge of environmental protection. Figure 1 shows the list of institutions at the State level, while Figure 2 lists institutions per entities and BD BiH. In the FBiH, the cantons, as distinct administrative units, have institutions in charge of environmental protection.11 This issue is, of course, regulated at the local level as well. Namely, cities and municipalities in BiH have separate offices, such as the office for spatial planning and environmental protection, the office for utilities, the office for inspection, etc.

11 Una-Sana Canton: Ministry of Construction, Spatial Planning and Environmental Protection; Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry; Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Economy; Ministry of Health and Social Policy. Posavina Canton: Ministry of Transport, Communications and Environmental Protection; Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry; Ministry of Economy and Spatial Planning; Ministry of Justice and Administration; Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Policy. Tuzla Canton: Ministry of Spatial Planning and Environmental Protection; Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry; Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Transport; Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining; Ministry of Justice and Administration; Ministry of Health. Zenica-Doboj Canton: Ministry of Spatial Planning, Transport, Communications and Environmental Protection; Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry; Ministry of Health; Ministry of Justice and Administration; Ministry of Economy. Bosnia-Podrinje Canton: Ministry of Urbanism, Spatial Planning and Environmental Protection; Ministry of Social Policy, Health, Displaced Persons and Refugees; Ministry of Justice, Administration and Work Relations; Ministry of Economy. Central Bosnia Canton: Ministry of Forestry, Water Management and Agriculture; Ministry of Spatial Planning, Reconstruction and Return; Ministry of Health and Social Policy; Ministry of Justice and Administration; Ministry of Economy. Herzegovina-Neretva Canton: Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Environmental Protection; Ministry of Transport and Communications; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management; Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning; Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection; Ministry of Economy. Western Herzegovina Canton: Ministry of Spatial Planning, Construction and Environmental Protection; Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Policy; Ministry of Justice and Administration; Ministry of Economy. Canton Sarajevo: Ministry of Spatial Planning and Environmental Protection; Ministry of Transport; Ministry of Health; Ministry of Justice and Administration; Ministry of Economy. Canton 10: Ministry of Construction, Reconstruction, Spatial Planning and Environmental Protection; Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry; Ministry of Labour, Health, Social Protection and Exiled Persons; Ministry of Justice and Administration; Ministry of Economy.

46

Figu

re 1

– In

stitu

tions

at st

ate

leve

l in

char

ge o

f env

ironm

enta

l pro

tect

ion


Figu

re 2

- In

stitu

tions

at e

ntity

and

BD

BiH

leve

ls in

char

ge o

f env

ironm

enta

l pro

tect

ion

48

Similar to the legislative and executive authorities in BiH, the judicial authorityis established as a separate authority at different levels. Given the complexity of the BiH governmental structure, it also largely differs across certain state level administrative units. A diagram of judicial authority in BiH is shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 – List of courts in BiH in charge of environmental protection matters


2. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT

Environmental protection has been enabled through various types of legal protection including administrative law, particularly the Aarhus Convention and Law on Environmental Protection, as well as criminal law, minor offence law and civil law. Due to limited access to certain decisions of courts practicing the above mentioned laws, the following text presents the most prominent legal issues in the area of legal and administrative environmental protection, with a special focus on the Aarhus Convention and state and entity laws on freedom of access to information, in connection to decisions passed during 2012. Considering the importance of criminal and minor offence legal protection, separate chapters of this document present the most important matters in this area with statistics of decisions passed by relevant courts in BiH in 2012.

For the purpose of this Analysis, we have gathered with the assistance of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH, judgements and data from relevant courts in BiH on relevant legal actions in administrative cases, on charges, investigations, indictments and verdicts in 2012 for crimes against the environment.

2.1. Administrative and Legal Environmental Protection from the Aspect of the Rights Set Forth in the Aarhus Convention

Administrative law is a branch of law governing the administrative activity and encompasses general legal norms regulating administrative organisation, activity and all operations of governmental agencies in order to enable the administration to carry out its tasks12. All institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those mentioned earlier herein as relevant to environmental protection, are to be considered administrative authorities and must adhere to all laws regulating operations of administration.

We have noted earlier the significance of the Aarhus Convention and laws on environmental protection, having in mind that they ensure the right to access information and public participation in passing decisions in the field of environment and the so-called right to access justice (legal remedy). The implementation of the Aarhus Convention and that of the freedom of information acts13 has been obligatory since the date of its ratification by BiH.

2.1.1. Right to Access Information

Freedom of information acts provide for every person to have the right to access information controlled by public authorities, to the fullest possible extent in line with public interest, bearing in mind that they represent the public good and that public access to information promotes higher transparency and accountability of these authorities. In terms of the Aarhus Convention and environmental laws, the information in question pertain to the environment.

Public authorities, on the other hand, must, primarily and on their own initiative, publicise certain information pertaining to environment and deliver information upon requests, except in exceptional cases when access to information may be denied. Upon examination of each individual case, an exception is established only when a relevant authority finds a corresponding exception in one of the freedom of information acts or environmental laws defined as such and depending upon which law is applicable in a particular case.

12 Pravni leksikon (Legal Lexicon), “Miroslav Krleža” Institute of Lexicography, Zagreb, 2006, pg. 1699.13 BiH Freedom of Information Act (Official Gazette of BiH, Nos. 28/00, 45/06, 102/09 and 62/11); FBiH Freedom of Information

Act (Official Gazette of FBiH, Nos. 32/01 and 48/11); RS Freedom of Information Act (Official Gazette of RS, No. 20/01).

50

From the available data and court decisions, collected for the purpose of this Analysis, one may conclude that the overall 2012 case-law referring to access to information is connected to the application of freedom of information acts, which has largely set the focus of this Analysis.

Chart 1 – Court decisions passed in BiH in 2012 upon legal actions initiated in regard to requests for application of freedom of information acts

Based on the analysis of court decisions in administrative procedures passed in BiH in 2012 upon legal actions initiated in connection to freedom of information acts, as shown in Chart 1 above, it may be concluded that the courts in BiH in 2012 acted upon the total of 15 actions in administrative procedures, passing seven (7) decisions to overrule14, seven (7) decisions to accept and annul first-instance and appellate decisions, referring the cases back for reconsideration15 and one (1) decision to dismiss the legal action as premature16.

2.1.1.1. Obligation of Public Authorities to Act Upon Requests for Access to Information

Access to information that has not been publicised, for example, via electronic media, is achieved by submitting a request to access information with the public authority believed to be relevant. In case the authority regards itself as not relevant it must refer the request to the relevant authority and notify the applicant thereof. This obligation of referral is defined in freedom of information acts, while the Aarhus Convention only leaves a possibility of taking such action. A request for access to information does not have to be explained in terms of the interest of the applicant, but it must be submitted in writing in one of the official languages in use in BiH and contain the applicant’s name, address and sufficient data on the nature and/or contents of requested information in order to enable the authority to carry out regular activities on providing the requested information.

A public authority must respond to the request within 15 days of the date of submission of the request for information, except in cases of legally provided extensions of the mentioned deadlines. Otherwise, the applicant may employ legal remedies on account of the so-called “administration’s silence”, which is elaborated further in this Analysis in Chapter 2.1.3.

Regardless of whether the public authority provides access to requested information or denies it in part or entirely, the authority must respond in writing accordingly, in line with freedom of information acts and environmental laws. The Aarhus Convention leaves an amount of freedom to public authorities to

14 Decision of the Cantonal Court of Bihać, No. 01 0 U 004573 10 U of 27 Nov 2012; Decision of the Cantonal Court of Mostar, No. 07 0 U 006698 12 U of 13 Nov 2012; Decision of the Cantonal Court of Zenica, No. 04 0 U 004739 12 U of 28 Sep 2012; Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 004829 11 U of 10 Dec 2012; Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 007330 11 U of 16 Feb 2012; Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 007332 11 U of 05 Dec 2012; Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 007391 11 U of 16 May 2012.

15 Decision of the Cantonal Court of Mostar, No. 07 0 U 006313 12 U of 07 Jun 2012; Decision of the Cantonal Court of Novi Travnik, No. 06 0 U 004341 11 U of 07 Dec 2012; Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 005999 11 U of 17 Apr 2012; Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 005856 11 U of 13 Sep 2012; Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 007276 11 U of 01 Feb 2012; Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 007499 11 U of 28 Feb 2012; Decision of the Basic Court of Banja Luka, No. 11 0 U 006987 11 U of 08 May 2012.

16 Decision of the Basic Court of Banja Luka, No. 11 0 U 009977 12 U of 12 Dec 2012.


respond in writing only if the request is sent in writing or if the applicant explicitly demands a written response. Either way, the type of document to be drafted by the public authority under freedom of information acts in BiH and the FBiH is a decision, while in the RS the prescribed document is a letter of response in writing.

If a public authority refuses to deliver information partly or in whole, the mentioned document i.e. response, must be sent in writing and contain the decision of the public authority, data on valid grounds for exemption from delivering information and quotes of Articles to which it refers therein, as well as all substantive matters relevant to the decision including public interest and reference to legal remedies. This means that the response or decision must contain a rationale; otherwise, freedom of information acts would be breached ultimately alongsiderights to effective legal remedies in terms of Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which prevails over all other laws in BiH.

2.1.1.2. Exemptions from the Obligation to Deliver Information

Provisions of freedom of information acts, environmental laws and the Aarhus Convention provide, in general, for the obligation to deliver information under the prescribed procedures. However, there are precisely defined exemptions from this ruleon the basis of which a public authority may deny information partly or in whole. These exemptions concern public authorities’ functions, confidential commercial information and privacy protection under freedom of information acts.

On the other hand, environmental laws provide for a larger number of exemptions under the Aarhus Convention17. Nevertheless, the entire available case-law pertains to freedom of information acts and exemptions defined therein, so the focus of this Analysis lies upon the three previously mentioned exemptions in light of relevant court decisions passed in 2012 in BiH. Though there are only a small number of decisions specifically referring to environment, it is clear that all decisions passed by courts in BiH upon actions taken in regard to the application of exemptions provided for in freedom of information acts may, by analogy, be applied to all areas including the area of environmental protection.

Finally, it is important to emphasise that freedom of information acts provide for the possibility of dividing information into several parts. If the requested information corresponds to a part prescribed as the exemption, a public authority may single out and withhold that part and disclose the rest of the requested information to the applicant, unless such separation affects the information to the extent to which it renders the information unintelligible.

a) Exemption from Publicising in Regard to Public Authorities’ Functions

It is prescribed that a public authority may withhold information related to its function in cases when it is reasonably considered that disclosing the requested information may inflict a major damage on legitimate goals of precisely specified categories varying depending upon on the level of authority at which a freedom of information act is adopted. The BiH Freedom of Information Act lists the following categories as relevant: a) foreign policy, interests of defence and security and public security protection; b) interests of monetary policy; c) prevention of crime and any detection of crime; d) protection of the process of decision-making by a public authority as regards giving opinion, advice or recommendation by a public authority or its employee or any other person carrying out activities in its name or on its behalf, excluding factual, scientific or technical information. Almost identically, at the entity level, entity freedom of information acts provide for all exemptions, except in cases of foreign and monetary policy which falls solely under the jurisdiction of BiH.

17 A request for environmental information may be denied in case: a) authorities do not possess the requested environmental information; b) the request is obviously unfounded or does not contain sufficient data about the requested information; c) the request concerns materials in preparation or internal communication of the authorities, where denial is regulated by another law, bearing in mind that general interest may be violated by disclosing the requested information or the requested information is disclosed to representatives of associations or foundations, interested citizens and print on account of collective interest, in which case the relevant authority refers the applicant to sources where the applicant can obtain the requested information.

The request for environmental information may be denied in case its disclosure may have harmful effects upon: a) international relations, defence or general security; b) proceedings in progress, right of a person to a fair trial and criminal or disciplinary proceedings governed by the authority; c) confidentiality of information pertaining to commerce or industry or emissions of relevance to environmental protection, if regulated by separate regulations and with the aim of protection of economic interests; d) right to intelectual property; e) confidentiality of personal data and/or documents about natural persons in case those persons have not given consent to revealing those data in public; f) interests of third persons who have provided those data voluntarily in case they have not given consent to revealing them; g) environment to which the requested information refers, such as rare species breeding sites.

52

It is important to emphasise that other relevant laws must be consulted when establishing these exemptions, such as the Law on Intelligence and Security Agency of BiH, Law on Personal Data Protection and documents regulating individual areas in decision-making processes including rulebooks and rules of procedures of relevant authorities that participate in those processes.

According to the available data and court decisions collected, the number of court decisions passed in BiH in 2012 as to legal actions in administrative proceedings referring to exemptions from disclosing information related to public authorities’ functions is not very high, as shown in Chart 2 below.

Chart 2 – Court decisions passed in BiH in 2012 upon legal actions initiated in regard to exemptions from disclosing information related to public authorities’ functions

In 2012, courts in BiH passed in total five (5) decisions as to legal actions in administrative proceedings referring to these exemptions. All actions were overruled, where the Court of BiH decided in three cases that the public authorities established the exemption correctly, bearing in mind that disclosing the requested information might inflict a major damage on legitimate goals of BiH including foreign policy goals, interests of defence and security and public security protection. The defendant properly established during proceedings that the requested information corresponded to operational materials, which were, inter alia, flagged as confidential18. In one (1) case the Court of BiH overruled the legal action stating that the public authority established the exemption correctly related to public authorities’ functions for the purpose of protecting the process of decision-making by the public authority as an independent authority19. The same conclusion reached the Cantonal Court in Bihać when it overruled the legal action for the purpose of protecting the process of decision-making by a public authority or any other person carrying out activities in its name or on its behalf, excluding factual, scientific or technical information20.

Judging by the available data, courts in BiH overruled all legal actions in all cases in 2012 rendering the public authorities to have acted correctly when establishing exemptions from disclosing information related to public authorities’ functions, which stresses the importance of interests protected in that way, particularly at the state level, in cases tried before the Court of BiH. However, this conclusion is reached solely on the basis of the data collected, leaving a possibility that the courts also passed different decisions in 2012, which were unable to be included in this Analysis.

b) Confidential Commercial Information Exemption

An exemption for confidential commercial information occurs where a competent authority reasonably determines that a request for access to information involves the confidential commercial interests of a third party. Hence, because the information concerns a third party, the competent authority has an obligation to notify the third party in writing of the specifics of the request, and the third party has the right to notify the competent authority that it regards the requested information to be confidential, and has an obligation to give reasons as to why harm would result from disclosure.

18 Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 004829 11 U of 10 Dec 2012; Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 004829 11 U of 10 Dec 2012; Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 007331 11 U of 04 Nov 2012; Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 007330 11 U of 16 Feb 2012.

19 Decision of the Court of BiH, No. S1 3 U 007391 11 U of 16 May 2012. 20 Decision of the Cantonal Court of Bihać, No. 01 0 U 004573 10 U of 27 Nov 2012.


Only after the receipt of the notification from the third party does the competent authority decide on whether there is a basis to establish an exemption for confidential commercial information. If the third party does not, within 15 days of receipt of the notice, respond in writing, the competent authority shall disclose the information, in accordance with the above-mentioned notice delivered to the third party.

Practice has shown that public authorities inform the applicant as well about the notice sent to the third party. The deadline to receive the requested information is, in that case, extended for an additional period of 15 days, since that is the legally stipulated period of time to communicate with the third party.

According to the available information and the judgements collected for the purpose of this Analysis, in 2012 the courts in BiH did not deliberate on lawsuits regarding a refusal to access information due to an exemption for confidential commercial information.

c) Protection of Personal Privacy Exemption

The third exemption stipulated by the freedom of access to information acts is an exemption for the protection of personal privacy, which is claimed by a competent authority where it reasonably determines that the requested information involves the personal privacy interests of a third person. The exemption formulated in this way provides, in fact, the widest possible scope of protection of both the so-called privacy interests and of the applicants in terms of their right to access information, because any attempt to list the areas in which access is granted or denied would significantly narrow the scope of applicability and the protection of privacy, as well as the access to information. Upon deciding on whether this exemption applies, it would be necessary to keep in mind the provisions of other laws as well, e.g. the BiH Law on the Protection of Personal Data.

According to the available information and the judgements collected for the purpose of this analysis, in 2012 the courts in BiH did deliberate on a small number of lawsuits in administrative disputes regarding an exemption for the protection of personal privacy, as seen above in Chart 3.

Chart 4 – Judgements in 2012 in BiH in lawsuits regarding an exemption for the protection of personal privacy

Courts in BiH, according to the available information, in 2012 deliberated in four (4) administrative disputes in total, regarding denials of access to information because of an exemption for the protection of personal privacy. The Court of BiH issued two (2) judgements in total.In one of them the Court rejected the lawsuit because it was of the opinion that, in the administrative procedure which had preceded it, the exemption for the protection of personal privacy had been properly determined21;In the other, the Court accepted the lawsuit and annulled both the first-instance and the second-instance decisions because it was of the opinion that the exemption for the protection of personal privacy had not been properly determined.22 The Cantonal Court in Novi Travnik and the Cantonal Court Mostar issued one (1) judgement each, accepting the lawsuits and annulling the previous decisions, returning the cases to be deliberated again in lower-level courts.23

21 Judgement of the Court of BiH, No.: S1 3 U 007391 11 U, dated 16 May 2012;22 Judgement of the Court of BiH, No.: S1 3 U 007499 11 U, dated 28 February 2012;23 Judgement of the Cantonal Court in Novi Travnik, No.: 06 0 U 004341 11 U, dated 07 December 2012; Judgement of the

Cantonal Court in Mostar, No.: 07 0 U 006313 12 U, dated 07 June 2012;

54

2.1.1.3. Obligation to Test Public Interest

Freedom of access to information acts and the Aarhus Convention stipulate an obligation to test public interest, i.e. a public authority shall disclose the requested information, notwithstanding that it has claimed an exemption, where to do so is justified in the public interest. At the same time, the public authority must take into account both any benefit and harm that may accrue from disclosing such information, and must explain its conclusion in detail. Thus it is not sufficient for the public authority to mention that the disclosure of the requested information is not justified in the public interest, but it is also necessary to mention the reasons for such a conclusion. Otherwise, there would be a misinterpretation of this provision.24

The Court of BiH, in its jurisprudence, determined that “in making a decision as to whether the disclosure of information is justified in the public interest, the competent public authority shall take into account the circumstances including, but not limited to, any disrespect of a legal obligation, any offence, court error, abuse of power or negligence in official conduct, unauthorised use of public funds or any risks to health or safety of an individual, of the general public or of the environment”.25

It is also important to emphasise that if the public authority determines that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest when an exemption is determined either for confidential commercial information or for the protection of personal privacy, the competent public authority is obliged to notify the third party that such information shall be disclosed 15 days after the receipt of the notification, which must also include the legal remedy instructions.

2.1.2. Right of Public Participation in Decision-Making

The second pillar of the Aarhus Convention, which has been incorporated into environmental protection laws in BiH, is the right of public participation in environmental decision-making. The notion of public participation, in legal terms, is a dual one and it implies, more specifically, a set of rights which provide for an active participation of the public concerned in the decision-making process at the earliest stage, on the basis of available information, and more broadly, it implies general characteristics of a democratic decision-making process, which covers all three pillars of the Aarhus Convention – right of access to information, public participation in decision-making and right of access to justice.

Public participation is a complex process, which may be organised in different ways, may occur in different situations and may involve numerous participants. The process is a long-term one and it is very important for the democratic development of a country. It is a source of knowledge, skills and enthusiasm of citizens, in order to make better and more democratic decisions. The effects of such a process cannot be felt in a short period of time, but they represent the framework of sustainable development, because the inclusion of the public in decision-making enhances the quality of the decisions, which in turn respond to the needs of a larger number of citizens, and the process itself becomes more legitimate and more open. Hence lower is the risk of a situation in which those who should implement the decisions would not accept them.

Public participation in decision-making does not mean that all citizens will automatically be satisfied with the decisions made, but the citizens have an opportunity to express their views and opinions, which are discussed during the process, in order to achieve consensus. However, in spite of numerous positive effects, public participation may be followed by a number of difficulties, such as a slow process of making the final decision and raising unrealistic expectations among citizens concerning the final outcome. However, in a long-term perspective, (a) public participation in decision-making raises the level of democracy (b) citizens are more convinced that their opinions are valued and respected and (c) the level of citizens’ trust in the government, their confidence that they can influence changes in public policies and their sense of belonging to the community are increased.

The State Parties to the Aarhus Convention, including BiH, are obliged to include the public when adopting environmental legal regulations; when adopting environmental plans and programs; in decisions on specific activities that may be of importance for the environment.

24 Judgement of the Cantonal Court in Zenica, No.: 04 0 U 003194 11 U, dated 24 November 2011;25 Judgement of the Court of BiH No.: S1 3 U 004829 11 U, dated 10 December 2012; Judgement of the Court of BiH No.: S1

3 U 004829 11 U, dated 10 December 2012; Judgement of the Court of BiH No.: S1 3 U 007331 11 U, dated 04 November 2012; Judgement of the Court of BiH No.: S1 3 U 007332 11 U, dated 05 December 2012; Judgement of the Court of BiH No.: S1 3 U 007330 11 U, dated 16 February 2012;


There are various techniques, as well as formal and informal methods of public participation in decision-making, depending on the level of government at which the decision is made. All in all, the first step in the procedure is to provide adequate information that a decision-making mechanism is being initiated, which implies public participation. The second step is to provide information on the content of the decision, which is about to be made, and the third step are the methods of public participation. Formal methods of public participation include public insight, public debate, referendum, civic rally and civic initiative, while informal methods include advocacy, lobbying and direct pressure methods such as signatures, petitions etc. 26

Public participation has been incorporated into the environmental protection laws in BiH, in an almost identical way to that of the Aarhus Convention, whose importance lies in the fact that it emphasises the importance of timely information and public participation in the early stages of decision-making; protects the right of the public concerned to investigate, free of charge, all the information relevant to decision-making and the right of the public to express concerns or to present information it deems important for decision-making; obliges the decision-making body to take into account public comments and suggestions; and obliges the public authority to inform the public on all the decisions made, i.e. to publish the text of a decision and the reasons upon which it is based.

One of the most important activities that require public participation in decision-making, is the environmental impact assessment process, i.e. environmental permit issuance process. The environmental protection laws and their subsequent rulebooks prescribe an environmental impact assessment procedure concerning projects and operators.

Having analysed the collected judgements, we noted that only one judgement was issued in 2012 which, in fact, did not concern public participation in decision-making, but did concern the Environmental Impact Study of a Small Hydropower Plant on the River Sana, in which the District Court in Banja Luka rejected the lawsuit as unfounded.27 Because of a lack of judgements on this issue, we could not, in this analysis, deal with this matter in more detail.

2.1.3. Right of Access to Justice

The right of access to justice is a term which describes the third pillar of the Aarhus Convention, and it denotes the right to a legal remedy. In terms of the third pillar of the Aarhus Convention, this right refers to a possible review of decisions conducted by the relevant second-instance bodies, through the use of legal remedies, concerning the first two pillars of the Aarhus Convention – the right of access to information and the right of public participation in decision-making – but also concerning procedures to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities that contravene provisions of their national law relating to the environment. The right of access to justice, in terms of the Aarhus Convention, denotes the right to have access to available legal remedies before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law.

The applicability of this pillar of the Aarhus Convention, and of the previous two pillars, must be discussed in light of the national legislation and of the available legal remedies. In that sense, if the national legislation includes the right to appeal the first-instance decision of an administrative body, then that is the legal remedy which must first be used.Only after that can one file a lawsuit in an administrative dispute, in accordance with the laws on administrative procedures and laws on administrative disputes adopted in BiH.28 If, on the other hand, an appeal is not allowed as a regular legal remedy in an administrative procedure, such a decision becomes final and a lawsuit against it can be filed immediately in an administrative dispute, unless otherwise regulated by a separate law.

26 Manual for the Practical Application of the Aarhus Convention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, ISBN No. 978-92-9234-019-3, pp. 26 – 38.

27 Judgement of the District Court in Banja Luka, No.: 11 0 U 009977 12 U, dated 12 December 2012;28 Law on Administrative Procedure of BiH (“Official Gazette of BiH”, No.: 29/02, 12/04, 88/07, 93/09 and 41/13); Law on

Administrative Procedure of the Brčko District (“Official Gazette of the Brčko District”, No.: 3/00, 5/00, 9/02, 8/03, 8/04, 25/05, 8/07, 10/07, 19/07, 2/08, 36/09 and 48/11 – consolidated text); Law on Administrative Procedure of FBiH (“Official Gazette of FBiH”, No.: 2/98 and 48/99); Law on General Administrative Procedure of RS (“Official Gazette of RS”, No.: 13/02, 87/07 and 50/10).

Law on Administrative Disputes of BiH (“Official Gazette of BiH”, No.: 19/02, 88/07, 83/08 and 74/10); Law on Administrative Disputes of the Brčko District (“Official Gazette of the Brčko District”, No.: 4/00 and 1/01); Law on Administrative Disputes of RS (“Official Gazette of RS”, No.: 109/05); Law on Administrative Disputes of FBiH (“Official Gazette of FBiH”, No.: 9/05).

56

Apart from the regular legal remedies, laws on administrative procedure also envisage the following extraordinary legal remedies which may be used only in cases precisely defined by law: renewal of the procedure; amending and revoking of decisions related to the administrative procedure; revocation and cancellation of a decision under the right of supervision; request for protection of legality; extraordinary cancellation of decisions; declaration of the decision to be invalid; and cancellation and amendment of the valid decision with the Party’s consent or at the Party’s request.

The courts in BiH that are authorised to act upon lawsuits in administrative disputes are the Court of BiH at the State level,29 the FBiH Supreme Court and cantonal courts in the FBiH,30 the RS Supreme Court and district courts in the RS,31 and the Appellate Court and the Basic Court in the BD BiH.32

Since most attention in environmental protection regulations is paid to the right to access information, and because almost all of the collected judgements of courts in BiH in 2012 concern the implementation of the Freedom of Access to Information Act, it is useful and necessary to discuss the use of legal remedies in access to information decisions of competent authorities.

It was emphasised above that a public authority is obliged to respond to a freedom of access to information request no later than 15 days following the receipt of such a request, except in legally prescribed situations when the deadline is extended, and if they should fail to do so even after the extended deadline of seven (7) days, the applicant has the right to file an appeal with the relevant second-instance body. The same rule applies in terms of the second-instance body acting upon the appeal. Namely, if the second-instance body does not issue a decision upon the appeal within 30 days, and if it does not issue the decision within the additional period which, pursuant to the BiH Law on Administrative Disputes, is seven (7) days,33 a deadline which may vary depending on the particular law on administrative disputes which is applied, the applicant has the right to file a lawsuit in accordance with the administrative dispute procedure. The inaction of the authorities following a request or an appeal is called “administrative silence”.

It is obvious from the jurisprudence that when courts decide upon the lawsuits against “administrative silence”, they do not deliberate on the merit of a case and do not accept or reject a freedom of access to information request, but they only determine whether a public authority acted in accordance with the stipulated freedom of access to information response deadlines. In case the courts decide that there was “administrative silence”, they order the public authorities to issue an act, within a given deadline, either concerning a freedom of access to information request or concerning an appeal against the “administrative silence” in the second-instance procedure.

Recently, there have been interpretations that, for example, no possibility of appeal against ministerial decisions concerning freedom of access to information requests is prescribed, but only the possibility of a lawsuit in an administrative dispute. Those claims cannot be true, judging from the provisions of the freedom of access to information acts, as well as from jurisprudence. Namely, the freedom of access to information acts, which are applied as lex specialis, prescribe the possibility to appeal the decision, no later than 15 days after the receipt of the act, and it is only after the decision of the second-instance body upon the appeal is made that the act shall become final, opening the possibility to file a lawsuit in an administrative dispute, in accordance with the laws on administrative disputes. If that is not the case, the courts cannot act upon such lawsuits, because they are filed too early in the procedure and are rejected as such.

That was exactly the stance of the District Court in Banja Luka in Case No.: 11 0 U 008640 12 U, which rejected the lawsuit because it was filed too early in the procedure, since the plaintiff had had the opportunity to file an appeal against the first-instance decision, but the plaintiff had not used that legal remedy, thus the preconditions to initiate an administrative dispute were not met.34

Furthermore, freedom of access to information acts stipulate the possibility to file an appeal in cases in which a freedom of access to information request was either completely or partially rejected, and

29 Law on the Court of BiH (“Official Gazette of BiH”, No. 49/09 – consolidated text, 74/09 and 97/09);30 Law on Courts in FBiH (“Official Gazette of FBiH”, No. 22/06, 63/10, 72/10 and 7/13);31 Law on RS Courts (“Official Gazette of RS”, No. 37/12);32 Law on the Brčko District Courts (Official Gazette of the Brčko District, No. 19/07, 20/07, 39/09 and 31/11);33 Article 21 of the Law on Administrative Disputes of BiH (“Official Gazette of BiH”, No.: 19/02, 88/07, 83/08 and 74/10).34 Judgement of the District Court in Banja Luka, No.: 11 0 U 008640 12 U, dated 04 July 2012;


in the cases of “administrative silence”. However, what happened in practice was a situation in which the court had to make a decision in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff’s freedom of access to information request was approved, but after the expiry of the stipulated deadline of 15 days. The Cantonal Court in Zenica rejected the lawsuit as unfounded and concluded that “provisions of the Freedom of Access to Information Act in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina do not stipulate a possibility to file a complaint, or an appeal, against a decision in which an applicant’s freedom of access to information request was approved, but after the expiry of the stipulated deadline of 15 days from the day of receipt of such a request”.35

Finally, the Aarhus Convention in its third pillar envisages the right of access to justice concerning procedures to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of its national law relating to the environment. Legal instruments concerning this provision are provided in the civil procedure codes adopted in BiH, and in the Law on Contractual Relations. It is also important to point out that the Civil Procedure Code of the RS, in its 2013 amendments, introduced the notion of a lawsuit to protect collective interests. Thus, the associations, bodies, institutions or other organisations established in accordance with the law, which protect legally prescribed collective interests and rights of citizens as part of their register of legally prescribed activities, may, when such authority is expressly stipulated by a separate law and under conditions stipulated by that law, file a lawsuit to protect the collective interests and rights against a private person or a legal person who, as part of the conduct of a particular activity or of work in general, by action or omission, seriously violates or jeopardises such collective interests and rights. Those interests may be the interests concerning the environment and its protection, as well as moral, ethnic, consumer, anti-discrimination and other interests, which are guaranteed by law and which must be seriously violated or jeopardised by the actions or work of the person against whom the lawsuit is filed.

2.1.4. Conclusion

During the collection of judgements and information necessary to develop this analysis we faced difficulties in access to judgements of courts in BiH, concerning the administrative procedure of environmental protection, i.e. access to information on the environment and public participation in environmental decision-making, in terms of the Aarhus Convention. In spite of significant assistance from the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council, it was impossible to access all the judgements issued in 2012 that dealt with this matter, thus it was possible that there were other judgements, to which we had no access.

Anyway, the collected judgements lead to a conclusion that there was not a single judgement issued in BiH in 2012 concerning the right to access environmental information or the right to public participation in environmental decision-making. There was only one judgement directly concerning environmental protection issued by the District Court in Banja Luka and it referred to the Environmental Impact Study.

Furthermore, the collected judgements also point to the fact that during 2012, in BiH, no judgements were issued in administrative disputes in which the courts would apply provisions of the Aarhus Convention and of the environmental protection laws, apart from the above-mentioned judgement of the District Court in Banja Luka which invoked the RS Environmental Protection Law. The collected judgements mostly deal with the application of the freedom of access to information laws, in the sense of private persons who requested information mostly concerning the work of administration authorities in BiH, the Armed Forces issues and the issue of personal data in healthcare. There were a smaller number of lawsuits by legal persons regarding their property rights.

It is currently difficult to discuss reasons behind the lack of jurisprudence in environmental protection, in the sense of provisions of the Aarhus Convention, since we do not have more detailed information, but one could assume that the lawsuits were either not filed or that there is no adequate database of court decisions which would contain such information. Hence, one of the recommendations for future analyses in this area would be to establish a separate section in the databases of court decisions (CMS), which would register court decisions per right to access environmental information or per right to public participation in environmental decision-making.

35 Judgement of the Cantonal Court in Zenica, No.: 04 0 U 004739 12 U, dated 28 September 2012;

58

2.2. Protection of Environment through Criminal Law in BiH

Protection of the environment in BiH is conducted, among other ways, through criminal law. Having in mind the complex state structure of BiH, it is already clear that separate criminal legislation is applied depending on the level of government. Thus criminal offences, including criminal offences against the environment, can be found in multiple criminal codes, i.e. in the Criminal Code of BiH (hereinafter: CC BiH),36 the Criminal Code of the FBiH (hereinafter: CC FBiH),37 the Criminal Code of the RS (hereinafter: CC RS)38 and the Criminal Code of the BD BiH (hereinafter CC BD BiH)39.

Depending on the territory and the Criminal Code which contains the provisions on the criminal offence, the appropriate Criminal Procedure Code, which regulates the rules of criminal procedure according to which the courts, the prosecutors and all the other parties have to act, is applied. Namely, the code applied at the State level is the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH (hereinafter: CPC BiH),40 at the Entity level the Criminal Procedure Code of the FBiH (hereinafter: CPC FBiH)41 and the Criminal Procedure Code of the RS (hereinafter: CPC RS)42, and in the BD BiH it is the Criminal Procedure Code of the BD BiH (hereinafter: CPC BD BiH)43.

Hence, the jurisdiction of courts in BiH to try such criminal offences depends on the criminal offence itself. The Court of BiH has jurisdiction to act as the first-instance and the second-instance body over criminal offences defined in CC BiH and other laws of BiH. The Criminal Division of the Court of BiH serves as the first-instance body.44 The first-instance courts in the FBiH may be either municipal or cantonal, while the appeals against the first-instance judgements of the municipal courts are decided by the cantonal courts, and the appeals against the first-instance judgements of the cantonal courts are decided by the FBiH Supreme Court.45 In the RS, the first-instance courts may be basic courts or district courts, while the appeals against the first-instance judgements of the basic courts are decided by the district courts and the appeals against the first-instance judgements of the district courts are decided by the RS Supreme Court.46 In the BD BiH, the first-instance court is the Basic Court of the BD BiH, while the Appellate Court of the BD BiH decides on the appeals against the first-instance judgements of the Basic Court of the BD BiH.47

a) Crimes against the Environment in BiH

A criminal offence is any unlawful act which is prescribed by law as a criminal offence, whose characteristics are prescribed by law and for the commission of which criminal sanctions are prescribed by law, and which can be committed by act or omission. The perpetrator of a criminal offence may be a private person or a legal person,48 and the purpose of sanctions is defined as a need to express social condemnation of the committed criminal offence; to influence the perpetrator not to commit criminal offences in the future and to encourage his/her re-education; to influence others not to commit criminal offences; and to raise awareness of the citizens concerning the detrimental effects of criminal offences and the justified sanctions against the perpetrators.

Since there is no harmonised definition in BiH of criminal offences against the environment, for the purpose of this analysis, a criminal offence against the environment in BiH is any criminal offence prescribed by the relevant chapters of criminal codes in BiH. Specifically, in the CC FBiH this issue has been regulated by Chapter XXVI – Criminal offences against the Environment, Agriculture and

36 Criminal Code of BiH (“Official Gazette of BiH”, No. 32/03, 37/03, 54/04, 61/04, 30/05, 53/06, 55/06, 32/07 and 8/10).37 Criminal Code of the FBiH (“Official Gazette of FBiH”, No. 36/03, 37/03, 21/04, 69/04, 18/05, 42/10 and 42/11);38 Criminal Code of the RS (“Official Gazette of RS”, No. 49/03, 70/06, 73/10 and 1/12);39 Criminal Code of the BD BiH (“Official Gazette of the BD BiH”, No. 33/13 – consolidated text).40 Criminal Procedure Code of BiH (“Official Gazette of BiH”, No. 36/03, 26/04, 63/04, 13/05, 48/05, 46/06, 76/06, 29/07,

32/07, 53/07, 76/07, 15/08, 58/08, 12/09, 16/09, 93/09 and 72/13);41 Criminal Procedure Code of the FBiH (“Official Gazette of FBiH”, No. 35/03, 37/03, 56/03, 78/04, 28/05, 55/06, 27/07, 53/07,

9/09, 12/10 and 8/13);42 Criminal Procedure Code of the RS (“Official Gazette of RS”, No. 53/12);43 Criminal Procedure Code of the BD BiH (“Official Gazette of the BD BiH”, No. 33/13 – consolidated text).44 Law on the Court of BiH (“Official Gazette of BiH”, No. 49/09 – consolidated text, 74/09 and 97/09);45 Law on Courts in the FBiH (“Official Gazette of FBiH”, No. 22/06, 63/10, 72/10 and 7/13)46 Law on the RS Courts (“Official Gazette of RS”, No. 37/12);47 Law on the BD BiH Courts (Official Gazette of the BD BiH, No. 19/07, 20/07, 39/09 and 31/11);48 The responsibility of a legal person does not refer to BiH, FBiH, RS, BD BiH, canton, city, municipality and local community.


Natural Resources (Articles 303 – 322 of the CC FBiH); in the CC RS by Chapter XXXIII – Criminal offences against the Environment (Article 415 – 437 of the CC RS); and in the CC BD by Chapter XXVI – Criminal offences against the Environment, Agriculture and Natural Resources (Articles 297 - 316 of the CC BD). The criminal offences against the environment prescribed in the CC FBiH and CC BD are almost identical, but somewhat different from the criminal offences against the environment prescribed in the CC RS, in terms of their names, length of sentences (e.g. the criminal offence of Environmental Pollution from Article 303 of the CC FBiH prescribes a prison sentence of between three months and five years, while the criminal offence of Pollution of the Environment from Article 415 of the CC RS prescribes a fine or a prison sentence of up to two years); a qualified form of a criminal offence (e.g. the criminal offence of Environmental Pollution from Article 303 of the CC FBiH, in case it results in the death of one or more persons, prescribes a prison sentence of between one year and twelve years, while the criminal offence of Pollution of the Environment from Article 415 of the CC RS does not have a similar provision), etc.

It certainly does not mean that some other criminal offences found in the regulations in BiH cannot be regarded as criminal offences against the environment, such as Illicit Procurement and Disposal of Nuclear Material (Article 194 of CC BiH), Pollution of Potable Water and Foodstuff (Article 236 of CC FBiH), etc. However, taking into account the information we received, those criminal offences tried before the Court of BiH were not discussed in this analysis, because we did not have the data on such complaints, indictments and judgements.

Bearing in mind the importance of EU regulations in BiH, which was explained in the introduction to this analysis, it was certainly necessary to consult the regulations during the development of the analysis. Namely, the EU Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law is a basis in defining criminal offences against the environment. In its Article 3, it defines the criminal offences against the environment. Apart from listing the criminal offences, the Directive contains an obligation to ensure that the offences are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties and both private and legal persons can be held liable. Until the moment this document was written, no detailed analysis of the degree of harmonisation of the regulations in BiH with the provisions of the Directive 2008/99/EC has been published, so the criminal offences mentioned in the Directive 2008/99/EC have been taken into account during the development of this analysis, without the assessment of the degree of harmonisation of the regulations in BiH with the provisions of the Directive.

Sanctions for criminal offences are prescribed by the criminal codes, and the courts must act within the legal limits, paying attention to all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Please find, in Table 1, a review of criminal sanctions defined by the criminal codes in BiH relevant for this analysis.

Table 1 – Criminal sanctions prescribed by criminal codes in BiH for criminal offenses against the environment

Criminal sanction Natural person Legal person

Prison sentence 30 days – 12 years Prison sentence is replaced by another sanction.

Fine In accordance with rules on fines 5,000.00 KM – double the amount of the property damage or of the illegally gained profit.

Suspended sentence In case of a suspended sentence, the court issues a sanction against the perpetrator and decides, at the same time, that it will not be carried out if the convicted person does not commit a new crime during the period of time determined by the court, of no less than one year and no more than five years (period of probation).

Not guilty The court may pronounce the perpetrator not guilty in circumstances explicitly prescribed by law.

Warning A court warning may be pronounced for certain criminal offences.

60

b) Basic Elements of Criminal Procedure in BiH

The criminal procedure is defined as a legally prescribed procedure against a private person or a legal person who has been suspected of or charged with the commission of one or more criminal offences, and is prescribed by the criminal procedure codes. The simplified version of the criminal procedure stages in BiH is described in Picture 4, with visual representation of the conduct of the criminal procedure.

Picture 4 – Criminal procedure stages in BiH

Following the receipt of information or official charges for a criminal offence, in other words, following completion of a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor in charge issues an instruction for the initiation of the investigation, provided that there is reasonable doubt that a criminal offence has been committed. It is important to underline that each citizen has responsibility to report a criminal offence to the relevant institution, if he/she has knowledge of it. In addition, failure to do so may represent a criminal offence under the circumstances mandated under the law. The relevant institutions are required to act upon such reports. If the prosecutor in charge believes that there is no sufficient evidence to initiate investigation, the person who reported the criminal offence should be notified of such a decision of the prosecutor, with clear explanation of the reasons for such a decision and detailed instructions with regard to submission of an appeal to the relevant prosecutor’s office.

Once the prosecutor in charge collects a sufficient number of evidence to substantiate reasonable doubt that the suspect committed the criminal offence he/she is charged with, indictment is prepared and submitted to the relevant court for confirmation. Once the indictment is confirmed, the criminal proceedings are conducted before the relevant court in the first instance, and depending on how the defendant pleas, the proceedings may include presentation of evidence. Following presentation of evidence, the relevant court in the first instance passes its judgement, which may result in conviction or acquittal. An appeal may be lodged against the judgement of the court in the first instance, which is to be handled by the relevant second instance court. The judgement of the court in the second instance is valid and binding and the convicted person has the right to pursue available legal remedies under the circumstances mandated under the law, which include appeal to the Constitutional Court of BiH and submission of application to the European Court of Human Rights.

2.2.1. Environmental Protection Efficiency Analysis through Criminal Law in BiH in 2012

Analysis of the mechanism of legal protection in the area of environmental protection in BiH during the course of 2012 was based on the data received from ten cantonal and five district prosecutors’ offices and the Prosecutor’s Office of BD BiH with reference to criminal offences against the environment committed in BiH during 2012, and includes number of reports being processed, a number of ongoing investigations, a number of instructions to not initiate investigation, a number of instructions to terminate investigation, a number of indictments, a number of confirmed indictments, a number of judgements resulting in prison sentence,a fine, a suspended sentence, a warning, a number of judgements resulting in convictions where the defendant was released, a number of judgements resulting in case dismissal and a number of acquittals.


Based on the data received, analysis of efficiency of the mechanism of legal protection in the area of environmental protection was prepared as a comprehensive overview of the operational efficiency of the relevant prosecutor’s offices with special emphasis on: criminal offences against the environment committed in BiH; diversity of criminal offences against the environment in BiH which resulted in confirmed indictments; and pronounced criminal sanctions in cases of criminal offences against the environment in BiH.

a) Overall Efficiency of Relevant Prosecutor’s Offices in Terms of Crimes against the Environment

The purpose of the analysis of this aspect of efficiency of the mechanism of legal protection in BiH was to prepare a comprehensive overview of the work of the relevant prosecutor’s offices in the area of processing of criminal offences against the environment in BiH, with separate analyses prepared for the FBiH, the RS and BD BiH. The intended purpose of developing separate analyses was to try to assess the efficiency of the work of these institutions through a comparison of the work of the relevant prosecutor’s offices, given the lack of data to indicate their efficiency in other areas of their work, pertaining to other types of criminal offences.

Chart 5 – Overall Efficiency of Relevant Prosecutor’s Offices in the FBiH in Terms of Crimes against the Environment in 2012

Chart 6 – Overall Efficiency of Relevant Prosecutor’s Offices in the RS in Terms of Crimes against the Environment in 2012

Chart 7 – Overall Efficiency of Relevant Prosecutor’s Offices in the BD BiH in Terms of Crimes against the Environment in 2012

62

Analysis of the data presented in charts 5, 6 and 7 indicates that there are no major differences in terms of the analysed aspects of work of the prosecutor’s offices in the FBiH, the RS and BD BiH. Therefore, it can be concluded that the relevant prosecutor’s offices in BiH perform their duties equally well.

In addition, it may also be noted that the relevant prosecutor’s offices work on a substantial number of cases against the environment. The prosecutor’s offices receive a high number of reports of possible criminal offences and conduct investigations in an even higher number of cases than the number of cases reported.

It is also important to note that the data submitted indicates that investigation was suspended during the course of 2012 in a substantial number of cases, in addition to a decision to not proceed with investigation made in 256 cases in the FBiH, 313 cases in the RS and 11 cases in BD BiH. Without additional data, it shall remain impossible to assess the reasons that resulted in a decision to suspend investigation or not initiate it.

The analysed data suggests that there is negligible difference between raised and confirmed indictments, which points to a conclusion that in most cases the indictments prepared by the relevant prosecutors’ offices get confirmed, which further suggests that the relevant prosecutors’ offices conduct their investigations appropriately.

Furthermore, the ratio between convictions on one side and case dismissals and acquittals on the other side suggests that the relevant prosecutor’s offices represent their cases well most of the time, which again indicates the appropriate level of care dedicated to the representation of cases of crimes against the environment in BiH by the relevant prosecutor’s offices.

b) Diversity of Crimes against the Environment in BiH per Confirmed Indictments

The purpose of the analysis of this aspect of the available legal mechanisms for environmental protection in BiH in 2012 is to test the distribution of crimes against the environment in BiH in cases in which indictments were confirmed. In the section 2.2.1.a) of the analysis it was concluded that indictments are confirmed in most cases, which indicated thorough investigation conducted by the relevant prosecutor’s offices in cases against the environment, and the issue of identification of criminal offences for which indictments were confirmed will be looked into further in the text.

Chart 8 – Diversity of Crimes against the Environment in BiH in 2012 per Confirmed Indictments

The data presented in Chart 8 above indicates that forestry theft was by far the most common criminal offence against the environment (Article 316 Criminal Code of the FBiH; Article 430 of the Criminal Code of the RS and Article 310 of the Criminal Code of BD of BiH). This criminal offence consists of cutting down for the purpose of theft of one or more trees, whereby the quantity of wood obtained in such way exceeds two cubic metres (CC FBiH and CC BD BiH), or three cubic meters (CC RS). The criminal sanctions mandated for this criminal offence range from up to three years in prison (FBiH / BD), a fine or two years in prison (RS). The qualified form of this criminal offence exists if the act was committed with the intent to sell the wood, or if the quantity of wood exceeds five cubic metres (FBiH/BD BiH), or eight cubic metres (RS); or if the act was committed in a protected woodland, national park or other kind of special purpose woodland. In those cases, the sanctions vary from one to five years in prison (FBiH/BD) to six months to five years in prison plus fine (RS).


The fact that only one criminal offence against the environment in BiH accounts for 96% of the confirmed indictments suggests that other criminal offences are either not reported or that the relevant prosecutor’s offices treat other criminal offences against the environment in BiH inconsistently.

It is also of some concern that forest theft does not constitute a criminal offence against the environment in the context of the Directive (2008/99/EC) on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The only exception is the qualified form of the criminal offence of forestry theft committed in protected woodland, national park or other type of special purpose woodland, in which case this criminal offence could be treated as the criminal offence against the environment in the context of the provisions of Article 3(f), (g) and (h) of the Directive. However, data on the qualified form of this criminal offence were not available during the process of development of this analysis, which is why it is impossible to determine with certainty the degree of prevalence of this form of criminal offence in practice.

Criminal offences against the environment in BiH, which also contain the elements of the criminal offences mandated under the Directive (2008/99/EC) on the protection of the environment through criminal law, could include the criminal offences set forth under the provisions of the following articles: 303, 304, 305, 314 and 321 of the CC BiH; articles 415, 416, 418, 419, 420, 428, 429 and 434 of the CC RS; and articles 297, 298, 299, 308 and 315 of the CC BD BiH.

However, the analysis of the data submitted indicated that in the RS and BD BiH these criminal offences were not represented in any of the cases opened by the relevant prosecutor’s offices, and due to lack of more detailed information, it remains impossible to identify the reasons for such finding. Nevertheless, in the FBiH, 18 cases have been opened in addition to 11 ongoing investigations and 3 confirmed indictments for the above criminal offences. Therefore, the number of confirmed indictments relating to these criminal offences accounts to 0.2% of all of the confirmed indictments for criminal offences against the environment in BiH.

The analysed data does not indicate that a single judgement was made in a case against the environment in BiH in the context of the Directive (2008/99/EC) on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

All analysed data point to the fact that there are no valid judgements in cases against the environment in BiH, during the course of 2012, in the context of the Directive (2008/99/EC) on the protection of the environment through criminal law, in addition to indicating very modest number of actions taken for the purpose of processing these criminal offences by the relevant prosecutors’ offices in BiH.

c) Types of Criminal Sanctions Pronounced in Completed Cases of Crimes against the Environment in BiH

The purpose and the aim of the analysis of data from the perspective of pronounced criminal sanctions in cases of processed criminal offences against the environment in BiH is to determine the number and type of the pronounced sanctions, taking into account the fact that the section 2.2.1.a) of the Analysis pointed to the conclusion that during the course of 2012 most of the confirmed indictments resulted in convictions.

Chart 9 – Types of Criminal Sanctions Pronounced in Completed Cases of Crimes against the Environment in BiH in 2012

64

The data presented in Chart 9 points to a conclusion that the relevant courts pronounce a suspended sentence in most cases which result in conviction, while it is a relatively rare practice that prison sentence or fine result from the proceedings in these cases. It remains questionable whether such type of criminal sanction truly fulfils the purpose of punishment and ensures adequate protection of the environment. Nevertheless, considering the lack of data to indicate the number of repeated criminal offences committed by the same perpetrators, it remains impossible to objectively analyse the efficiency of the pronounced criminal sanctions.

2.2.2. Conclusion

The initial analysis of the data on environmental protection through criminal law protection in BiH suggests that the relevant prosecutor’s offices in BiH conduct their investigations, raise indictments and represent their cases in court effectively and efficiently. However, a more detailed analysis may lead to a conclusion that the relevant prosecutor’s offices focus a lot of their attention to only one criminal offence against the environment; the criminal offence of forest theft. However, due to lack of data, it is impossible to identify the reason for such approach.

Analysing the data submitted from the perspective of the substance of the Directive (2008/99/EC) on the protection of the environment through criminal law, it appears that there are no completed cases of criminal offences against the environment in the context of this Directive in 2012 in BiH, while the percentage of ongoing cases that fall under this category is negligible.

Furthermore, the analysis of pronounced criminal sanctions suggests that most of the convictions resulted in a suspended sentence, which, given the substantial number of criminal offences against the environment brings into question the adequacy of such criminal sanctions. However, due to the lack of additional data, especially data on the number of recidivists, it remains impossible to come up with an objective and adequate conclusion in this regard.

For the purpose of improvement of the existing situation, the following measures could be implemented:

- Harmonise regulations in effect in BiH with the Directive (2008/99/EC) on the protection of the environment through criminal law;

- Implement training of prosecutors of the relevant prosecutor’s offices in methods and importance of prosecuting crimes against the environment in BiH; and

- Implement training of judges of the relevant courts on importance and adequate methods of protection of the environment through the system of criminal law.

2.3. Protection of Environment through Minor Offence Law in BiH in 2012

In addition to the forms of legal protection of the environment detailed above, protection of the environment is also provided through the system of the minor offence law with the relevant provisions detailed under the Law on Minor Offences of the FBiH,49 Law on Minor Offences of the RS50 and Law on Minor Offences of BD BiH.51 Minor offences, as well as the sanctions for those offences, are detailed under the relevant laws and regulations in the area of environmental protection in BiH, which are listed in the Appendix 1 of this Analysis. For the purpose of this Analysis, Table 2 provides an overview of the sanctions mandated for physical and legal persons under the provisions of the relevant regulations in effect in BiH.

49 Law on Minor Offences of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 31/06).50 Law on Minor Offences of the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 34/06, 1/09 and 29/10).51 Law on Minor Offences of BD BiH (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 24/07).


Table 2 – Overview of Sanctions Mandated under the Relevant Laws in the area of Environmental Protection in BiH

5253

Law Article(s)Sanctions mandated

Physical Persons52 Legal Persons53

FBiHLaw on Environmental Protection of the FBiH 116 300.00 to 1,500.00 KM 3,000.00 to 15,000.00 KMLaw on Water Resources of the FBiH 204 – 206 100.00 to 5,000.00 KM 2,000.00 to 50,000.00 KMLaw on Waste Management of the FBiH 53 500,00 to 2.000,00 KM 1,000.00 to 10,000.00 KM

Law on Air Protection of the FBiH 35 and 36 500.00 to 2,000.00 KM 500.00 to 10,000.00 KMLaw on Nature Protection of the FBiH 232 235 50.00 to 3,000.00 KM 500.00 to 15,000.00 KM

RSLaw on Environmental Protection of the RS 132 and 133 1,000.00 to 3,000.00 КМ 1,000.00 to 20,000.00 КМLaw on Water Resources of the RS 210 – 213 500.00 to 18,000.00 КМ 3,000.00 to 30,000.00 КМLaw on Waste Management of the RS 56 500.00 to 10,000.00 KM 1,000.00 to 10,000.00 KM

Law on Air Protection of the RS 75 – 78 500.00 tо 3,000.00 КМ and protective measures

1,000.00 tо 20,000.00 KM and protective measures

Law on Nature Protection of the RS 46 100.00 to 1,000.00 КМ 1,000.00 to 10,000.00 КМ

BD BiHLaw on Environmental Protection of BD 112 500,00 to 2.000,00 KM 1,000.00 to 10,000.00 KM

Law on Protection of Water of BD 63 100,00 to 1.700,00 KM 1,000.00 to 10,000.00 KMLaw on Waste Management of BD 56 500,00 - 10.000,00 KM 1,000.00 – 10,000.00 KM

Law on Air Protection of BD 45 100,00 to 15.000,00 KM 1,500.00 to 15,000.00 KM

Law on Nature Protection of BD 46 100,00 to 1.000,00 KM 1.000,00 to 10.000,00 KM

By mandating sanctions for minor offences in the provisions of the relevant environmental regulations in effect in BiH and implementing provisions on minor offences as stipulated under the laws on minor offences, penalty clauses detailed under a number of environmental directives of the EU were introduced in the legal systems of the entities and BD BiH. For instance, the provision of Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the Directive (2008/98/EC) of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste management and abolishment of certain directives54 contains a provision which mandates that sanctions must be efficient, proportional and deterring. This requirement has also been introduced into the legal system in place in BiH, through the provisions of the relevant laws of the entities and BD BiH, that is, through the laws that mandate the area of waste management, that fall under the category of minor offences regulations.

a) Basics of the Minor Offence Procedure

A minor offence is defined as an act of violation of the public order, as mandated under the law or other regulations, which has certain features and for which appropriate sanctions are mandated.55

A minor offence may result from an act or from a failure to act and may be committed both by physical and legal persons.

52 Data detailed under this column also applies to responsible officials within the legal entity.53 Data detailed under this column also applies to entrepreneurs and institutes.54 Official Gazette No: 312, dated 22 November 2008.55 Article 2 of the Law on Minor Offences of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH No. 31/06); Article 1 of the Law on Minor

Offences of the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, No. 34/06, 1/09 and 29/10); Article 3 of the Law on Minor Offences of BD BiH (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No 24/07).

66

The courts in BiH responsible for handling minor offences in the first instance are the relevant municipal courts in the FBiH and the relevant basic courts in the RS and BD BiH, in addition to the relevant cantonal courts in the FBiH, the relevant district courts in the RS and the Appellate Court in the BD BiH, in the second instance.

Figure 1 – Simplified Overview of the Course of Minor Offence Proceedings in BiH

Minor offence proceedings may be initiated with issuance of the minor offence charges by the authorised institution or by filing a request for initiation of the minor offence proceedings to the relevant court in the first instance. Minor offence charges are issued by a relevant institution when once such institution finds that a minor offence was committed as mandated under a relevant regulations. In addition to the identification of a minor offence and a quote of the relevant provisions of the law, the minor offence charges also include a sanction and instruction to the defendant as to his/her right to file a request for initiation of the proceedings before the relevant court.56 In addition, the minor offence charges also detail the name of the court and the timeframe for submission of the request for initiation of court proceedings in a minor offence case, should the defendant decide to pursue that course of action.

The defendant in a minor offence case may opt to accept responsibility for the minor offence by paying a fine. Should the defendant decide not to pursue legal action in court, it shall be deemed that the defendant accepted responsibility, in which case minor offence charges become final and binding.

Proceedings before the court may also be initiated in two ways, namely by initiation of the proceedings at the request of the applicant, in cases when it is not possible to issue a minor offence charges or at the request of the defendant to initiate court proceedings to rule whether the defendant is responsible for the minor offence cited in the minor offence charges.

Minor offence proceedings are usually completed after one verbal hearing, and are concluded by issuance of a decision on minor offence, which may indicate that minor offence proceedings are to be dismissed,57 that the defendant is responsible for omission,58 or that the defendant is found guilty for

56 Detailed layout of the minor offence charges template is mandated under the provisions of Article 34 of the Law on Minor Offences of the FBiH, Article 33 of the Law on Minor Offences of the RS and Article 35 of the Law on Minor Offences of BD BiH.

57 Article 54 of the Law on Minor Offences of the FBiH; Article 54 of the Law on Minor Offences of the RS; and Article 61 of the Law on Minor Offences of BD BIH.



the minor offence.59 Appeal may be lodged against the decision of the court to the relevant cantonal court in the FBiH, the relevant district court in the RS or the Appellate Court in BD BiH.

2.3.1. Environmental Protection Analysis through Minor Offence Law in BiH

Given the data provided by the relevant institutions, during the course of development of this Analysis it was not possible to analyse the number of minor offence charges issued that were accepted by defendants, which would represent the first step of the minor offence proceedings, as demonstrated by Figure 6 below. In fact, it was not even possible to conduct a detailed analysis of decisions made by the relevant courts in minor offence proceedings in 2012, given the fact that data was submitted for the period between 2011 and 2013. However, the data submitted leads to a conclusion that the vast majority of the relevant courts in BiH did not submit the data requested, while less than a half of those that did confirmed existence of minor offence cases in the area of environmental protection, as shown in Chart 10. In addition, none of the second instance courts submitted data of relevance to this matter.

Chart 10 – Overview of Data Submitted

Bearing in mind the lack of data necessary for the development of a relevant and objective analysis in terms of environmental protection in BiH during the course of 2012 through legal protection in the area of minor offences, the only choice available was to present an overview of number of minor offence cases processed in accordance with the provisions of the relevant environmental regulations in effect in BiH.

Chart 11 – Number of Minor Offence Cases Processed under Environmental Regulations in Effect in BiH


68

As the Chart 11 suggests, there are very few cases falling under the category of minor offences against the environment, with a vast majority referring to minor offences detailed under the provisions of the Law on Water Resources of the FBiH.60 Based on the limited scope of the data submitted, in all cases the minor offence charges were accepted, with exception of one case, in which charges were dismissed.

2.3.2. Conclusion

Due to insufficient scope of the data submitted, making definite conclusions on the subject of environmental protection provided by the courts of BiH in the area of legal protection in minor offence cases represented a major challenge. In fact, what was evident from the data provided was that there was not many cases processed by courts in minor offence cases against the environment in BiH; in other words, there was not sufficient data available on this subject matter, for reasons that remained unknown during the course of development of this Analysis. Furthermore, according to the data available, where such cases were processed by the relevant courts, a substantial disparity was noted in terms of representation of individual laws in effect in BiH, with absolute majority of the cases relating to minor offences mandated under the provisions of the Law on Water Resources of the FBiH.

It is to be suspected that in reality, the number of minor offence cases in the area of environmental protection in BiH exceeds the number presented here. In addition, this analysis did not include cases processed under the cantonal, city and municipal regulations in the area of environmental protection, which are certainly present in practice (e.g. Goražde Municipal Court confirmed existence of such cases).

Having already concluded that there are relatively few minor offence cases against the environment tried before minor offence courts in BiH, and having considered the fact that where there were such cases, they almost always were limited to minor offences mandated under the provisions of the Law on Water Resources of the FBiH, which mandates higher fines, it may be concluded that the sanctions for minor offences mandated under the law were not severe enough. Therefore, it would be necessary to reform the minor offences laws to mandate that fines should be proportionate to profit earned, assuming that higher profit leads to a more severe pollution of the environment. That way, small and large polluters would be equally discouraged from polluting the environment and violating the relevant provisions of the environmental regulations in effect in BiH.

Bibliography:1. Bjelajac Ž. and others, EU Environmental Policy and its Legal Framework (Original title: Ekološka politika

EU and njen krivično – pravni okvir), MP 4, 2011;2. Directive (2003/4/EC) of the European Parliament and the Council dated 28 January 2003, on public

access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC 90/313/EEC (SL L 41, 14.02.2003);

3. Directive (2003/35/EC) of the European Parliament and the Council dated 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, with respect to public participation and access to justice (SL L 156, 25.06.2003);

4. Directive (2008/99/EC) of the European Parliament and the Council dated 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Official Gazette of BiH – MU, No: 8/08);

5. Legal Lexicon, Institute of Lexicography, Zagreb, 2006;6. Protection of Environment through Criminal Law (Official Gazette 328, 06 December 2008);7. Manual for the Practical Application of the Aarhus Convention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, OSCE Mission

to Bosnia and Herzegovina, ISBN No. 978-92-9234-019-3.

60 Law on Water Resources of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 70/06).


APPENDIX 1

Current Laws at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Official Gazette of BiH – MU, No: 8/08);

2. Law on Freedom of Access to Information (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 28/00, 45/06, 102/09 and 62/11);

3. Law on Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 30/03, 42/03, 81/06, 76/07, 81/07 and 24/08);

4. Law on Administration (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 32/02 and 102/09);5. Law on Ministries and other Bodies of Administration in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette

of BiH, No: 5/03, 42/03, 26/04, 42/04, 45/06, 88/07, 35/09, 59/09 and 103/09); 6. Law on Court of BiH (Official Gazette of BiH, No. 49/09 – revised text, 74/09 and 97/09);7. Law on Civil Service and Institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of BiH, No:

12/02, 19/02, 8/03, 35/05, 4/04, 17/04, 26/04, 37/04, 48/05, 2/06, 32/07, 43/09, 8/10 and 40/12);8. Law on Administrative Procedure (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 29/02, 12/04, 88/07, 93/09 and 41/13);9. Law on Administrative Disputes (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 19/02, 88/07, 83/08 and 74/10);10. Criminal Code of BiH (Official Gazette of BiH, br. 32/03, 37/03, 54/04, 61/04, 30/05, 53/06, 55/06,

32/07 and 8/10) ;11. Law on Criminal Procedure of BiH (Official Gazette of BiH, br. 36/03, 26/04, 63/04, 13/05, 48/05,

46/06, 76/06, 29/07, 32/07, 53/07, 76/07, 15/08, 58/08, 12/09, 16/09, 93/09 and 72/13);12. Law on Protection of Plants (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 23/03);13. Law on Protection of New Species of Plants in BiH; (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 14/10 and 32/13);14. Law on Seeds and Plant Propagating Material of Agricultural Plants in BiH (Official Gazette of

BiH, No: 03/05) ;15. Law on Veterinary Medicine BiH (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 34/02);16. Law on Animal Health and Wellbeing (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 25/09);17. Law on Agriculture, Food and Rural Development of BiH (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 50/08);18. Law on GMO (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 23/09);19. Law on Phytopharmacy of BiH (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 49/04);20. Law on Concessions (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 32/02 and 56/04);21. Law on Radiation and Nuclear Safety (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 88/07); 22. Law on Statistics BiH (Official Gazette of BiH, No: 26/04).

Current Laws at the Level of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Law on Freedom of Access to Information of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 32/01 and 48/11);

2. Law on Organisation of Bodies of Administration in the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 35/05);

3. Law on Federal Ministries and other Bodies of Federal Administration (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 58/02, 19/03, 38/05, 2/06 and 61/06);

4. Law on Civil Service in the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 29/03, 23/04, 39/04, 54/04, 67/05, 8/06 and 4/12);

5. Law on Courts in the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, br. 22/06, 63/10, 72/10 and 7/13);6. Law on Principles of Self-Government in the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 49/06 and

51/09);7. Law on Administrative Procedure (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 2/98 and 48/99);8. Law on Administrative Disputes (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 9/05); 9. Criminal Code of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No. 36/03, 37/03, 21/04, 69/04, 18/05, 42/10

and 42/11);10. Law on Criminal Procedure of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No. 35/03, 37/03, 56/03, 78/04,

70

28/05, 55/06, 27/07, 53/07, 9/09, 12/10 and 8/13);11. Law on Minor Offences of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 31/06);12. Law on Environmental Protection (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 33/03 and 38/09);13. Law on Environmental Protection Fund of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 33/03);14. Law on Nature Protection (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 33/03);15. Law on Water Resources (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 70/06);16. Decree on Forests (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 83/09, 26/10, 38/10 and 62/11);17. Law on Conditions and Methods of Wood Processing (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 27/97 and

25/06);18. Law on Seeds and Plant Propagating Material of Forest and Horticultural Species of Trees and

Shrubs (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 71/05 and 8/10);19. Law on Air Protection (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 33/03 and 4/10);20. Law on Veterinary Medicine (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 46/00);21. Law on Hunting (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 4/06 and 8/10);22. Law on Fresh Water Fishing (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 64/04); 23. Law on Agriculture (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 88/07 and 4/10);24. Law on Agricultural Land (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 52/09);25. Law on Protection from Ionising Radiation and Nuclear Safety (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No:

15/99);26. Law on Mining of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 26/10);27. Law on Geological Research (Official Gazette of the FBiH“, No: 9/10);28. Law on Urban Planning and Use of Land at the level of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No:

2/06, 72/07, 32/08, 4/10, 13/10 and 45/10);29. Law on Concessions (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 40/02 and 61/06);30. Law on Electricity of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 66/13);31. Law on Use of Renewable Sources of Energy and Efficient Cogeneration (Official Gazette of the

FBiH, No: 70/13);32. Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 33/03 and 72/09);33. Law on “Una” National Park (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 44/08);34. Law on Health Protection (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 46/10);35. Law on Statistics of the FBiH (Official Gazette of the FBiH, No: 63/03 and 9/09).

Current Laws at the Level of Republika Srpska

1. Law on Freedom of Access to Information of the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 20/01);2. Law on Republic Administration (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 118/08, 11/09, 74/10, 86/10 and

24/12);3. Law on Local Self-Government (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 101/04, 42/05 and 118/05);4. Law on Administrative Procedure (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 13/02, 87/07 and 50/10); 5. Law on Courts of the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, br. 37/12);6. Law on Administrative Disputes (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 109/05); 7. Criminal Code of the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, br. 49/03, 70/06, 73/10 and 1/12);8. Law on Criminal Procedure of the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, br. 53/12);9. Law on Minor Offences of the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 34/06, 1/09 and 29/10);10. Law on Environmental Protection (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 71/12);11. Law on Environmental Protection Fund and Financing of Environmental Protection (Official

Gazette of the RS, No: 51/02 and 53/07);12. Law on Nature Protection (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 50/02, 34/08 and 59/08, revised text –

113/08);13. Law on Water Resources (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 50/06 and 92/09);14. Law on Forests (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 75/08);15. Law on Reproductive Material of Forest Trees (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 60/09);16. Law on Protection of Plants in the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 25/09);17. Law on Plant Protection Products (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 52/10);18. Law on Air Protection (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 53/02);19. Law on Protection and Wellbeing of Animals (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 111/08);20. Law on Veterinary Medicine in the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 42/08);21. Law on Hunting (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 60/09);22. Law on Fishing (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 4/02 and 58/09);23. Law on Beekeeping (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 52/10);24. Law on Agriculture (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 70/06, 20/07, 86/07 and 71/09);


25. Law on Agricultural Land (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 93/06, 86/07 and 14/10);26. Law on Organic Food Production (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 75/04 and 71/09);27. Law on GMO (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 103/08);28. Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 53/02 and 65/08); 29. Law on Protection from Non-Ionising Radiation (Official Gazette of RS“, No: 2/05);30. Law on Chemicals (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 25/09);31. Law on Biocides (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 37/09);32. Law on Urban Planning and Construction (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 40/13);33. Law on Concessions (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 59/13);34. Law on Energy Production (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 49/09);35. Law on Mining (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 59/12);36. Law on Geological Research (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 51/04);37. Law on National Parks (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 75/10);38. Law on “Sutjeska” National Park (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 121/12); 39. Law on Meteorology and Hydrology of the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 20/00);40. Law on Statistics of the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, No: 85/03).

Current Laws at the Level of Brčko District of BiH

1. Law on Government of Brčko District of BiH (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 19/07, 36/07, 38/07, 2/08, 17/08, 23/08, 14/10 and 28/12);

2. Law on Civil Service in Institutions of Brčko District of BiH (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 28/06, 29/06, 19/07, 2/08, 44/08, 25/09, 26/09 and 04/13);

3. Law on Courts of BD of BiH (Official Gazette of BD, No. 19/07, 20/07, 39/09 and 31/11);4. Law on Administrative Procedure of Brčko District of BiH (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 3/00,

5/00, 9/02, 8/03, 8/04, 25/05, 8/07, 10/07, 19/07, 2/08, 36/09 and 48/11 – revised text);5. Law on Administrative Disputes (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 4/00 and 1/01); 6. Criminal Code of BD of BiH (Official Gazette of BD, No. 33/13 – revised text);7. Law on Criminal Procedure of BD of BiH (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No. 33/13 – revised text);8. Law on Minor Offences of BD BiH (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 24/07);9. Law on Environmental Protection (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 24/04, 1/05, 19/07 and 9/09);10. Law on Nature Protection (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 24/04, 1/05, 19/07 and 9/09);11. Law on Protection of Water Resources of Brčko District of BiH (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No:

25/04 and 19/07);12. Law on Freshwater Fishing (Official Gazette of BD, No: 35/05 and 19/07);13. Law on Forests of Brčko District of BiH (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 14/10);14. Law on Air Protection (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 25/04, 1/05, 19/07 and 9/09); 15. Law on Agricultural Land (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 32/04, 20/06 and 19/07);16. Law on Urban Planning and Construction (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 29/08);17. Law on Concessions (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 41/06, 19/07 and 2/08);18. Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of BD BiH, No: 25/04, 1/05, 19/07, 2/08 and 9/09).

analiza sudskih odluka iz oblasti -...

Documents