319 KB37 KB196220242015Kink, BarbaraKlemenčič, Tinaštevilka:28letnik:28str. 27-40ISSN:0506-4252COBISSID:4276390URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-CJJFSWBTslZavod Republike Slovenije za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščineVarstvo naraveevropska sodna praksaizravnalni ukrepinadomestni habitatiNatura 2000obvozniceomilitveni ukrepiŠkofljicaNadomestni habitat - omilitveni ali izravnalni ukrep?| Replacement habitat - mitigation or compensatory measure?|The Nature Conservation Act stipulates certain mitigation and compensatory measures, with which an encroachment upon nature or its impacts are mitigated, or with which the envisaged or already caused degradation of nature is compensated. Among the possible types of these measures is introduction of replacement habitat, which has the same nature-conservation characteristics as the area significantly impacted by encroachment. On the basis of experience gained in Slovenian nature conservation practice and following the European law cases in other countries, the present article discusses the question whether the replacement habitat is a mitigation measure or a compensatory measure. The European legislation practice has made it clear that the European Commission stands proxy for the standpoint that replacement habitat in Natura 2000 area cannot serve as a mitigation measure but is used, after the implemented procedure of imperative reasons of overriding public interest, as a compensatory measure in the sense of Paragraph 4 of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. This, however, is feasible only when the following three conditions are met: that no other alternatives exist to attain the plan's or project's objectives (1), that imperative reasons of overriding public interest (over the public interest of nature conservation) exists (2), and that compensatory measures, which will provide for the preservation of integrity and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network, will be implemented (3)Zakon o ohranjanju narave določa omilitvene in izravnalne ukrepe, s katerimi se omili poseg v naravo ali njegove posledice oziroma nadomesti predvidena ali povzročena okrnitev narave. Med možnimi oblikami teh ukrepov je tudi vzpostavitev nadomestnega območja, ki ima enake naravovarstvene značilnosti kot območje, na katero je imel poseg bistven vpliv. Na podlagi izkušenj v slovenski naravovarstveni praksi in spremljanja evropske sodne prakse v drugih državah smo v članku obravnavali vprašanje, ali je nadomestni habitat omilitveni ali izravnalni ukrep. Iz evropske sodne prakse je razvidno, da Evropska komisija zastopa stališče, da nadomestni habitat na območju Natura 2000 ne more služiti kot omilitveni ukrep, temveč se ga po opravljenem postopku prevlade druge javne koristi uporabi kot izravnalni ukrep v smislu 4. odstavka 6. člena Direktive o habitatih. To pa je možno le takrat, ko so izpolnjeni trije pogoji: da za dosego ciljev plana ali posega ne obstajajo druge alternative (1), obstajati mora prevladujoča druga javna korist (nad javno koristjo ohranjanja narave) (2) ter izpolnjeni morajo biti izravnalni ukrepi, ki bodo zagotovili ohranitev celovitosti in povezanosti omrežja območij Natura 2000 (3)TEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaZavod RS za varstvo narave