The dispute was based on the fact that the Estonian State Forest Management Center (RMK) had submitted 12 forestry notifications to the Environmental Board for the purpose of carrying out tree felling. The areas where trees were to be felled are located outside the Nursipalu training area, but in its immediate vicinity. The NGO "Meie Nursipalu" appealed to the Administrative Court to have the forest notifications annulled and also sought preliminary injunctive relief to suspend the execution of the disputed forest notifications. The Court had granted the application for interim relief and suspended the execution of the felling permits until a final decision had entered into force.

Tallinn Administrative Court first assessed the right of appeal, then the potential noise disturbance to the surrounding environment, the area covered by the felling permit and the legality of the felling areas in relation to the habitats of osprey, as set out in the complaint. The Court found that the complaint should be dismissed.

The Court noted that the appellant has the right of appeal in so far as it challenged the potential environmental disturbance (noise) from the Nursipalu training area, but that it did not have a right of appeal in so far as it challenged the forestry notices in relation to the habitat of the osprey and the area covered by the felling permits.

However, the Court also provided an assessment regarding the legality of the logging permits, which were for an area containing the habitat of osprey. The Court noted that the Environmental Board had placed additional restrictions on logging in areas the osprey inhabits, which does not constitute a permanent habitat or a nesting tree, and that the forestry notices did not authorize the destruction of the osprey nesting trees.

The Court explained that the Environmental Board was not obliged to assess the potential noise disturbance caused to the surrounding environment from the Nursipalu training area when processing the felling permits. According to the noise study submitted to the court for the extension of the Nursipalu training area, the retention of the forest was not considered to be a sufficient mitigation measure.

The Court also noted that none of the felling areas exceeds five hectares, which means that the disputed forestry notifications are in accordance with the applicable law.

The appellant's arguments concerning the extension of the Nursipalu training area were said to be irrelevant, as the extension of the training area was not the subject of the dispute, the Court stated. The Court did not accept the argument that an environmental impact assessment was necessary as part of the forestry notifications procedure.

The decision has not entered into force and can be appealed at Tallinn District Court within 30 days.

---

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