Court: Department’s decision on 21 million Violation of “Ekobaze” worth EUR – illegal

The Vilnius District Administrative Court upheld the company’s complaint last week and annulled the mandatory AAD order as illegal, as it does not comply with the rules that assess all the circumstances and justify the decision.

“The mandatory instruction does not comply with the requirements of legal acts, therefore it should be annulled as illegal due to the fact that the basic procedures were violated during its adoption, especially the rules that should have ensured an objective assessment of all circumstances and the validity of the decision,” reads the December 6 court decision, which can be appealed to a higher court. to the court of instance.

According to the court, on June 13, environmentalists who carried out an inspection on the territory of “Ekobaze” on Vilnius Lentvarios Street this spring wrote a mandatory order – the company was told to remove the waste stored there and hand it over for proper disposal.

The company appealed this AAD decision, but in July, when the department did not change it, “Ekobaze” appealed to the court.

The department announced in July that after checking the territory of “Ekobaze” it was found that the company had contaminated the nearby plot of almost 4.8 thousand square meters. tons of non-hazardous waste – by illegally disposing of waste, the company did about 21 million to the earth and its deep layers. EUR damage.

Due to the violations, the AAD applied to the Vilnius District Prosecutor’s Office, requesting the initiation of a pre-trial investigation.

“Ekobaze” then rejected the accusations. According to the company, processed, sifted inert material, soil, which can be used for road construction or plot formation, is stored on the inspected plot of land, and this product is produced in accordance with the conditions of the pollution permit and the law, therefore its storage in the territory is legal.

According to the company, AAD determined the damage to nature without any evidence of this fact – it did not conduct land or soil pollution tests, product compliance and performance tests.