FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY - Article 19

ARTICLE 19GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSIONThe court obliged Brodyvodokanal to provide the information and reimburse the court fee.The court’s ruling was an important step towards the full realization of NGOs’ right to environmentalinformation.This was a landmark case as the Aarhus Convention was quoted in judicial proceedings inUkraine for the first time. It also provided a positive precedent that confirmed the obligation ofcompanies to provide environmental information to the public. EcoPravo-Lviv also had legal victoriesin cases against a number of State bodies, including the General Prosecutor’s Office.:,9,& !2!!%/ !" " " According to the data of the State Statistics of Ukraine for 2004, the number of animals which can behunted substantially decreased between 1991 and 2004. The adoption of effective legislationstipulating the procedure for hunting is vital for the preservation of the Ukrainian fauna. For huntingnot to have an adverse effect on the environment, the MEP and the State Committee on Forestry ofUkraine need to have accurate official State information on the number, state and geographical spreadof animals subject to hunting in the country. The Law On Fauna requires the maintenance andpublication (at least since 1995) of a State registry of fauna which should be published at least onceevery five years. However, no such registry has been published since 1995. This is a violation of theright of citizens and other interested parties to access environmental information.For this reason, in February 2006, EcoPravo-Kyiv and the Kyiv Environmental-CulturalCentre appealed to the Economic Court of Kyiv City against the State Committee of Forestry and theMEP with a number of requirements, in particular with the requirement to keep a register. In itsverdict from September 2006, the Economic Court of Kyiv City did not satisfy the plaintiff’s claims,including those concerning the register.EcoPravo-Kyiv and the Kyiv Environmental-Cultural Centre appealed to the Kyiv EconomicCourt of Appeals.In April 2007, the Kyiv Economic Court of Appeals overturned the previous decision inrelation to a number of the plaintiff’s claims: it recognised as illegitimate the MEP’s lack ofcompliance with its responsibilities, particularly the failure to maintain a State registry of fauna, andthe violation of the plaintiffs’ right of access to environmental information. The Court ordered theMEP to remedy the situation.For Internal Use Only. Is Post-Chornobyl Ukraine Ready for Access to Environmental Information?ARTICLE 19, London, 2007)&