The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) in administrative case No. 9459/2023 for the RDF waste incineration plant near the village of Varbovka has been issued and it is in favor of the people of Pavlikeni and the region. The case was filed upon complaints by the association “YOU DECIDE“ and the Regional Inspectorate for Environment and Water-Veliko Tarnovo against the Decision of the Administrative Court of Sofia District. This was announced by the association.
The SAC with its decision No. 2129 of 4.03.2025 CANCELS decision No. 932 of 12.07.2023, issued in administrative case No. 634/2023 on the list of the Administrative Court - Sofia District, due to a violation of the substantive law and a significant violation of the rules of court procedure and RETURNS the case for a new examination by another panel of the same court, taking into account the interpretation of the law given in this decision.
The reasons for the decision assume that the decision of the Director of the Regional Inspectorate for Environment, Water and Water - Veliko Tarnovo is correct and well-motivated in essence, because:
· The investment proposal provides for the use of waste fuels originating in Bulgaria as an energy source, but the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA) does not contain an analysis of the regional waste landfills, which creates a risk of using poor-quality waste fuels. During normal operation of the project enterprise, this creates a serious risk of damage to the atmospheric air, soil and water in the area, as well as the accumulation of waste, however, the EIA does not include a single measure to protect the cleanliness of the environment either during normal or emergency operation of the installation;
· The water required for the needs of the investment proposal of at least 75,000 cubic meters will be supplied from a borehole on the territory of the installation and from rainwater from the roof structure, but according to the Basin Directorate, no such borehole exists. The EIA does not consider the possibility of other water sources in the area of the IP being affected and how this would affect the quality of drinking water in the village of Varbovka, given that according to official data from “ViK Yovkovtsi“ the settlements in the municipalities of Pavlikeni and Suhindol are severely hampered in providing drinking water and there are no alternative water sources. Apart from this
· The EIA does not provide for measures that ensure continuous, correct and trouble-free operation of the flue gas purification facilities;
· When making its decision, the administrative body correctly took into account the many negative opinions, protest letters, declarations, citizen petitions with over 20,000 signatures and objections.
According to the cassation instance, judge EMIL ZHELEV of the Administrative Court – Sofia District DID NOT DO in the case, but WAS OBLIGED to do the following:
· To motivate the decision. At the same time, there are no specific considerations stated by the first instance court that led to the specific legal result. The court should have presented reasons, indicating the parties' positions, the facts of the case and the relevant legal conclusions.
· To read the evidence in the case, collected in five volumes, and to discuss them, and then to write what it generally considers to be established regarding the Decision of the Director of the Regional Inspectorate for Environmental Protection and Water-V. Tarnovo;
· To indicate all the numerous objections raised by the parties (the Regional Inspectorate for Environmental Protection and Water-V. Tarnovo and YOU DECIDE) and to give a reasoned answer as to what it accepts and what it rejects from these objections and why, referring to evidence;
· To read in a legally competent manner the Rules of Procedure for the Work of the Expert Councils at the Regional Inspectorate for Environmental Protection and Water-V. Tarnovo, according to which the Director of the Regional Inspectorate for Environmental Protection and Water-V. Tarnovo correctly and lawfully convened a second Expert Council on the objections made by the representatives of the two environmental associations – Pencho Pandakov from “Balkanka“ and Danita Zarichinova from “Za Zemiata“.
In its decision, the panel of the Supreme Administrative Court correctly summarizes: “The arguments put forward by the cassation appellants (YOU DECIDE AND RIOSW-V. Tarnovo) for the admission of significant procedural violations and violations of the substantive law by the court of first instance are shared by the cassation instance in accordance with the provisions of this decision. The flaws of the trial before the Administrative Court - Sofia and of the overturned court decision are so serious that they require the procedure to be repeated by another judge in the same court, in compliance with the instructions of the Supreme Administrative Court on how to read the evidence and how to apply the law.“
Although the new judge could have disregarded the instructions given by the Supreme Administrative Court in theory, in practice this would mean refuting the arguments of the experts and participants in the second EES, who with 19 votes against accepted that Petrurgia's investment would be harmful to the environment and the people in the region. This second decision of the Administrative Court - Sofia is also subject to appeal again to the Supreme Administrative Court, which, upon re-examination, should issue a final decision without returning the case for consideration by another judge due to non-compliance with the instructions given by the Supreme Administrative Court.