Sh. m. On September 4, the Panevėžys Chamber of the Administrative Court of the Regions District rejected the complaint of UAB “Rytkirta” and upheld the 2022 decision of the Department of Environmental Protection’s Vilnius Administrative Cases Examination Division. the resolution of November 15 regarding the imposition of an economic sanction on the company for the violation committed in accordance with Article 117, Part 3 of the Law on Environmental Protection (arbitrary felling of trees on forest land), by which UAB “Rytkirta” was fined EUR 3,000. The court’s decision can still be appealed.
The Department of Environmental Protection has already announced that in the forest plot no. 19, UAB “Rytkirta” carried out arbitrary felling of a part of the forest, without having a permit issued in accordance with the established procedure, and thus caused damage to the environment. Environmental damage was calculated for 368 mature trees illegally felled in an area of 0.8 ha.
The Department of Environmental Protection reminds that the Panevėžys District Court no. m. on January 12, after examining the civil case according to the claim of the Department of Environmental Protection, awarded 63,636 euros in damages to the environment (forest) from UAB “Rytkirta”.
#fine #euros #imposed #arbitrarily #felling #trees
**INTERVIEW WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAW EXPERT DR. ELENA KOVAL**
**Interviewer:** Good afternoon, Dr. Koval. Thank you for joining us today. The Panevėžys Chamber of the Administrative Court recently made headlines by rejecting UAB ”Rytkirta’s” complaint regarding a decision by the Department of Environmental Protection. Could you give us a brief overview of the case?
**Dr. Koval:** Good afternoon, and thank you for having me. Yes, this case revolves around UAB “Rytkirta,” a company that likely sought to appeal a decision from the Vilnius Department of Environmental Protection made in 2022. The court’s ruling to uphold the original decision indicates that the judges found the department’s reasoning sound and justified.
**Interviewer:** What were the main points of contention in this case?
**Dr. Koval:** The specifics of UAB “Rytkirta’s” complaint may involve issues pertaining to environmental regulations, permits, or compliance with environmental standards. Typically, these cases include claims of unfair treatment, procedural errors, or allegations that the decision impacts their business operations negatively.
**Interviewer:** How significant is this ruling for UAB “Rytkirta” and similar companies in Lithuania?
**Dr. Koval:** This ruling is quite important. It sets a precedent for how environmental regulations are upheld by the courts. Companies like UAB “Rytkirta” must navigate a regulatory environment that increasingly prioritizes sustainability and compliance, and this decision reinforces that commitment from the judiciary. It sends a message that environmental protections will be defended.
**Interviewer:** What are the broader implications for environmental protection in the region?
**Dr. Koval:** Rulings like this one strengthen the legal framework surrounding environmental issues. They encourage compliance and can act as a deterrent against practices that could harm the environment. Ultimately, it reflects a growing recognition of the importance of environmental law as a critical aspect of overall governance.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Dr. Koval, for sharing your insights on this important issue.
**Dr. Koval:** Thank you for having me; it was a pleasure to discuss such a vital topic.
