In June 2021, the Municipality of the Village of Tihany (hereafter: the Municipality) submitted a request for a screening procedure regarding a planned tourist development near Lake Balaton, the largest freshwater lake in Central Europe. The project included a visitor center, an open-air visitor area, and a car parking lot. The screening documentation covered a number of issues, ranging from noise via air pollution to nature conservation. With regard to climate issues, the documentation briefly found that the implementation of the project would not be influenced by climate change. The Veszprém County Government Office (hereafter: the Defendant) issued a decision in July 2021, declaring that the planned project would have no significant impact on the environment and therefore there would be no need to perform an Environmental Impact Assessment.
Friends of the Earth Hungary (hereafter: the Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in August 2021. In its file, the Plaintiff claimed that the climate chapter of the screening documentation is lacking actual content. It claimed that the planned project is obviously linked to water related tourism, and as such, will be heavily influenced by climate change. It also claimed that due to this, the decision of the Defendant to not require an Environmental Impact Assessment is unlawful and breaches the Government Decree on EIA that requires the detailed presentation of climate change related information in screening documentations before decision-making.
The Defendant in its counter-argument claimed that the project would be implemented further away from the waterfront and not directly at the lake shore; therefore, any climatic change in the lake would not have an effect on the project and the project would not be sensitive to climate change.The Municipality that intervened on behalf of the Defendant agreed with the arguments of the Defendant.
In November 2021, the court declared its judgment and annulled the decision of the Defendant, while ordering the defendant to restart the screening process and reassess the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment, putting more emphasis on the climate change aspects of the project.The court spelled out the following in its judgment:
“The court found from the content of the documentation that climate protection analyses or climate risk assessments other than a brief table are not included, and the data of the latter table contradicts to known facts.”
“Detailed sensitivity analysis, the exposure of the site and impact area of the project, the evaluation of certain impacts, the evaluation of risks and the adaptation of the planned project to climate change are not included. Presentation of how the planned project will have an effect on the area’s adaptation potential is also missing.”
“The Defendant’s decision is therefore heavily unlawful with regard to clarifying the facts of the case and providing a reasoning to the decision.”
Case Documents:
No case documents are available.