The court emphasized that annulling the orders does not mean that expanding the Nursipalu Training Area is impermissible in principle. The court had no doubts about the state's threat assessment, the resulting need to expand the training area or the legality of the choice of location. However, it found flaws in both orders.

The court found it unlawful that the 2023 order made a decision in principle to expand the training area at a time when the state did not have sufficient information to make an informed decision that took into account the impact on both the natural environment and local residents' living environment.

The environmental impact of the project had been described only superficially, no noise study had been conducted and only a preliminary Natura assessment had been carried out. Moreover, some potential impacts had been unlawfully excluded from that assessment.

Regarding the later order, the court identified shortcomings in two areas. First, some impacts on Natura 2000 sites near the training area had still not been assessed by 2024.

The Natura assessment is inadequate with regard to the impact on more sensitive bird species that are among the conservation objectives of the Karula Special Protection Area, as well as the impact on the Kubija Lake Special Area of Conservation.

Second, no effective environmental measures have been established to mitigate noise disturbance for residents living around the training area. According to the court, the state had acknowledged that, particularly during large-scale exercises, noise levels at the nearest homes exceed recommended limits for military noise. However, the court found that the mitigation measures introduced were general in nature and did not include specific restrictions or safeguards.

The Administrative Court found that the measures should either ensure compliance with noise limits at all homes or, alternatively, provide local residents who would be exposed to noise exceeding the limits with an effective means of avoiding such exposure. "It should also be kept in mind that the noise assessment was based on the assumption that there would be no firing at night, but in practice that assumption has proved incorrect. Nighttime noise limits are lower than daytime limits," the court said.

The court explained that activities with a significant environmental impact must be tolerated when they are necessary for reasons of overriding public interest, there is no reasonable alternative and the necessary measures have been taken to reduce their impact. However, before such a decision can be made, the impacts must first be identified and effective mitigation measures must also be developed.

If the shortcomings identified by the court are remedied, the state may be able to issue a new order that is largely the same in substance, with the necessary additions.

The court dismissed some of the complainants' claims because they lacked standing. Most were individuals who lived more than 10 kilometers from the expanded training area. One company also filed a complaint, but the court found that the interference with its freedom to conduct business was not sufficient to give it standing.

The ruling has not yet entered into force. It may be appealed to Tallinn Circuit Court within 30 days.

--

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