The court did however acknowledge that the crematorium, at Liiva kalmistu in Tallinn's southern approaches, is in a building whose designated planning use is not as such a facility.

The court has made an exception in this case.

In its ruling made last week, the court acknowledged that the crematorium's use does conflict with the intended purpose set forth in the detailed plan.

The court allowed for an exception, on the grounds that an operating permit can still be issued for a building if its use does not excessively infringe upon the rights of third parties.

 The court reviewed each of the complainants' claims of disturbance, concluding there was no significant impact on the complainants.

The main concerns raised by the plaintiffs included that the building's use as a crematorium conflicted with their religious beliefs, that smoke etc. from the facility would harm the value of their property, and that the crematorium's operation would harm their mental well-being.

The court found that the City of Tallinn had sufficiently investigated the alleged disturbance, commissioned expert opinions on the potential fall in property value, possible emotional and psychological impact, religious freedoms, and pollution aspects.

The court found no evidence to substantiate the claim of an odor issuing from the location.

The plaintiffs' references to this disturbance did not coincide with the crematorium's working hours.

While it is possible for such a facility to produce some odor, within legal limits, the city stated that, aside from some isolated cases, the result of technical failures, there have been no complaints about such issues from any other crematoria in the capital.

Additionally, the court ruled that the plaintiffs' right to religious freedom does not extend to a right to demand that buildings incompatible with those religious beliefs not be planned in the vicinity of their residence.

The court determined that the crematorium's construction had in any case not violated the general plan, although it did conflict with the detailed plan regarding its usage.

However, via legal proceedings, issuing an operating permit, if the building's use is adjudged to be safe and does not excessively infringe on the rights of third parties, is permissible.

Also, in the specific case in question, the court found that the respondent's actions during investigation, involvement, and justification, were materially comparable with procedures followed in the context of the detailed planning process.

However, the court did caution the respondent, noting that the handling of design conditions and the issuing of the building permit had been done unsatisfactorily.

The court also concluded that the crematorium's construction did not lead to any impact which would have allowed for the complainants' wishes to be disregarded during potential future planning procedures.

The court reiterated that this was an exceptional case, in which the respondent's thoroughness during the operating permit process was the deciding factor.

However, the court warned that in a similar situation, or if the circumstances were to recur, the outcome of proceedings could be different.

The court thus ruled to dismiss the complaint.

The decision has not yet entered into force and may be appealed to with the second-tier Tallinn Circuit Court within 30 days.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!