Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Villkorsskrivning i miljöfarlig verksamhet - Hur utformning av begränsningsvärden kan påverka rättssäkerheten och miljöhänsynen

Palm, Eline LU (2019) JURM02 20191
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med min utredning har varit att undersöka hur olika villkorskonstruktioner motsvarar de syften och intressen som de ska ligga till grund för. Miljöskyddet ska preciseras i tillståndsvillkoren, och konkretisera de centrala hänsynskraven för att förebygga, hindra eller motverka att verksamheten medför skada eller olägenhet på människors hälsa eller miljön. Utsläppsvillkor formulerade som begränsningsvärden ska därmed föreskriva de värden som krävs för att förhindra eller begränsa skadlig påverkan på grund av föroreningar. Tillståndsvillkoren ska också konkretisera vilka krav som ställs på VU, för att denne ska kunna bedriva och kontrollera sin verksamhet på ett rimligt sätt. Därutöver behöver villkoren formuleras på ett sätt så att... (More)
Syftet med min utredning har varit att undersöka hur olika villkorskonstruktioner motsvarar de syften och intressen som de ska ligga till grund för. Miljöskyddet ska preciseras i tillståndsvillkoren, och konkretisera de centrala hänsynskraven för att förebygga, hindra eller motverka att verksamheten medför skada eller olägenhet på människors hälsa eller miljön. Utsläppsvillkor formulerade som begränsningsvärden ska därmed föreskriva de värden som krävs för att förhindra eller begränsa skadlig påverkan på grund av föroreningar. Tillståndsvillkoren ska också konkretisera vilka krav som ställs på VU, för att denne ska kunna bedriva och kontrollera sin verksamhet på ett rimligt sätt. Därutöver behöver villkoren formuleras på ett sätt så att tillsynsmyndigheter, polis och åklagare också kan kontrollera verksamheten genom villkoren. Dessa myndigheter har därmed också ett intresse av att villkoren utformas så att de kan ligga till grund för tillsyn och straffpåföljder m.m.

För att villkor ska kunna uppfylla dessa olika syften och intressen, kan de behöva utformas på olika sätt. Ur miljösynpunkt kan flexibla villkor behövas, medan det ur straffrättslig synpunkt krävs entydiga villkor. Miljöbalkskommittén har dock uttryckt att den viktigaste funktionen inte är att villkoren ska kunna ligga till grund för straffrättsliga påföljder, utan att det viktiga är att villkoren minimerar negativ påverkan på hälsa och miljö och ger tillsynsmyndigheter möjlighet att rikta krav och ingripa vid överträdelser. Tillsynsmyndigheter kan nämligen fortfarande rikta krav mot VU och hjälpa denne att uppnå miljökraven på olika sätt, även om villkoren inte är utformade så de kan ligga till grund för straffrättsliga påföljder. Trots detta underkände HD i NJA 2006 s. 310 ett flexibelt villkor, ställt av MÖD ur miljösynpunkt. HD prioriterade nämligen det straffrättsliga intresset, och anförde att villkoret inte kunde ligga till grund för straffrättsliga påföljder. Villkoret hade dock ett annat angeläget syfte, då det låg i linje med MBs mål och centrala hänsynskrav.
HD tillämpade ett strikt formellt rättssäkerhetsperspektiv i domen, vilket resulterade i att VUs rättssäkerhet prioriterades framför miljöskyddet. Det traditionella rättssäkerhetsbegreppet tolkas nämligen till VUs fördel, och man beaktar främst VUs rätt att bedriva verksamhet i rättssäkerhetsfrågor. Det har dock ifrågasatts i doktrin om inte rättssäkerhetsbegreppet även borde väga in ”allmänhetens” rätt till rättssäkerhet på miljöområdet, eftersom VUs verksamhet påverkar allmänhetens miljö och hälsa negativt. Förutsebarheten minskar inom miljöområdet om inte MBs kravregler kommer till uttryck i villkorsskrivningen. Inom straffrätten ställs dock höga krav på förutsebarheten för VU, i o m legalitetsprincipen. Som ett resultat av att man tillämpar en sådan rättssäkerhetstolkning inom staffrätten, ges därmed VUs intresse företräde framför miljöintresset.

NJA 2006 s. 310 fick senare prejudicerande verkan, och påverkade MÖD i sin praxis om villkorsskrivning. MÖD utfasade riktvärdeskonstruktionen i syfte att skapa mer rättssäkra villkor. Trots att syftet med utfasningen var att skapa rättssäkra villkor, som också skulle kunna ligga till grund för straff, innebar utfasningen istället en minskad rättssäkerhet för VU i de fall överskridandet inte orsakats av underlåtenhet utan pga att VU inte kunde kontrollera utsläppsvärdet. VU måste dock ha en rimlig möjlighet att kontrollera utsläppsvärdet, och för villkorsbrott ska VU ha agerat oaktsamt eller uppsåtligt. Utfasningen ändrade inte VUs faktiska förutsättningar att kunna kontrollera villkorsvärdena.

Riktvärdeskonstruktionen tjänade nämligen ett viktigt syfte i de fall utsläppen var svårkontrollerbara. Eftersom riktvärden tillät VU att åtgärda överskridandet innan straff kunde utdömas, bidrog riktvärden till rättssäkerhet för VU då värdet var svårt att mäta, eller när det inte fanns tillräckliga kontrollmetoder. Vid låga nivåer av utsläpp av kvicksilverhalter i processavlopp fanns exempelvis inte mätmetoder som på ett säkert sätt kunde fastställa värdena. Vid bullerutsläpp förekom också stora mätsvårigheter, då närliggande störningsmoment, vilka låg utom VUs kontroll, kunde påverka bullervärdena. Även gasutsläpp från verksamheten var i vissa fall svåra att mäta på ett säkert sätt. Resultatet kunde då bli att man istället ökade utsläppsvärdena, alternativt som det öppnades upp för i MÖD 2009:9 – att man inte längre föreskrev villkor då man ansåg att VU inte skulle klara av en gränsvärdesutformning. Därmed var inte utfasningen i de svårkontrollerade fallen ändamålsenlig, varken ur miljösynpunkt eller rättssäkerhetssynpunkt – och följaktligen inte heller ur ett straffrättsligt perspektiv. Kanske hade en balans mellan de olika intressena bakom villkoren skapats på ett bättre sätt, om man inte utfasat riktvärdeskonstruktionen. Möjligen borde man istället i praxis på ett tydligare sätt ha fastställt i vilka fall riktvärden fick tillämpas.

I min utredning har jag visat att om det straffrättsliga intresset prioriteras vid villkorsskrivning, eller för den delen VUs rättssäkerhet, påverkas miljöskyddet negativt. (Less)
Abstract
The intent of this essay has been to examine how well certain permit conditions correlates with the interests and purposes they are supposed to provide basis for. The environmental protection is to be determined in the permit conditions, and thus specify the main environmental regulations in order to prevent and deter health risks or environmental damages that stem from the operation. Licence conditions should also specify what requirements the operator has to comply with, in order to keep his operations or business within the set values. Furthermore, licence conditions have to be formulated in a way so that regulatory authorities, the police and prosecutors can control the operations. Said agencies thereby have an interest in licence and... (More)
The intent of this essay has been to examine how well certain permit conditions correlates with the interests and purposes they are supposed to provide basis for. The environmental protection is to be determined in the permit conditions, and thus specify the main environmental regulations in order to prevent and deter health risks or environmental damages that stem from the operation. Licence conditions should also specify what requirements the operator has to comply with, in order to keep his operations or business within the set values. Furthermore, licence conditions have to be formulated in a way so that regulatory authorities, the police and prosecutors can control the operations. Said agencies thereby have an interest in licence and conditions being formulated in a way that provides a possibility to enforce them through supervision or sanctions.

In order for the conditions to achieve their expected purposes, they may need to be formulated in different ways. From an environmental standpoint, licence conditions may need to be flexible, whilst from a penal view, unambiguousness is required. The Environmental Code committee has however expressed that the main function of licence conditions should be to minimize negative impacts on health and environment and enable regulatory authorities to direct standards and intervene in case of violations. Namely, regulatory authorities will still be able to set demands on and help the operator in making sure that the conditions are being kept and limits potential emissions. This is possible even if the conditions aren’t formulated in a way so that they might form basis for penal consequences. Despite this, the Supreme Court rejected, in the case NJA 2006 p. 310, a flexible licence condition. This condition was proposed by the Environmental Court and was formulated from an environmental standpoint. The Supreme Court namely prioritized the penal view, and concluded that the condition could not form basis for penal consequences because of its vagueness. The condition however served an important environmental purpose, as it was proposed in line with the Environmental Code.

The Supreme Court’s ruling prioritized the operator’s legal certainty before the environmental protection. The traditional view on legal certainty is namely interpreted in favor of the operator, as it first and foremost considers the operator’s right to conduct business. It has however come in to question in doctrine if the legal certainty concept should also consider the public’s legal certainty in the environmental field, since the environment has a vast impact on our public health. Predictability is reduced within the environmental field if the Environmental Code is not properly expressed within the conditions. In criminal law, however, standards for predictability for the operator are set even higher, due to the principle of legality. As a result the interest of the operator exceeds the interest of the environment, which affects the licence conditions.

Later on, the ruling in NJA 2006 p. 310 became precedential. The Supreme Court’s statement that conditions had to be formulated so as to guarantee the operator’s legal certainty, and should also be able to form basis for criminal proceedings, was an important reason why the Environmental Court changed its practice when formulating conditions. This furthermore led to the discarding of target values. Even though target values were discarded in order to ensure legal certainty for the operator, the effect was rather the opposite in certain cases. Legal certainty for the operators was actually reduced in cases when violations were not caused by negligence; i.e. when the operators simply could not control their emission values. Consequently, violations of target values in these cases would not be able to form basis for criminal consequences, since the operators must be able to oversee and control thier emission values, also in order to be held accountable for violations of conditions.

Target values served an important purpose in cases when emissions where hard to control. Since target values allowed the operator to rectify exceeding emissions before sanctions could be imposed, target values ensured the operator’s legal certainty when values of emissions were hard to predict or measure. For example, in cases of low level mercury emissions in process drainage systems, there were no reliable methods of measurement to establish the correct amount of emissions. Noise emissions are also problematic to measure, due do adjacent activities that are out of the operator’s control, which affect the overall values. Even gas emissions can be problematic for the operator to measure in a reliable way. As a result of the operator’s decreased legal certainty, stemming from the discarding of target values, the set values of emission could in some cases be raised or, as it was suggested in MÖD 2009:9, conditions might not be provided for at all. Therefore it would be hard to say that the discarding of target values was appropriate in such cases, neither from a legal certainty - or environmental perspective - nor, thusly, from a criminal law perspective. If it were not for the discarded target values, perhaps a balanced approach to the formulation of conditions could be established between the different perspectives. Possibly, more focus should have been directed to establish when target values should be applied.

In my essay I have come to the conclusion that if the interest of criminal law, or the interest of the operator’s legal certainty is prioritized, the environmental protection will not have its intended impact on conditions. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Palm, Eline LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Permit conditions in environmental hazardous operations - How formulating permit conditions affect legal certainty and environmental concerns
course
JURM02 20191
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Förvaltningsrätt, Miljörätt
language
Swedish
id
8977553
date added to LUP
2019-06-17 14:40:25
date last changed
2019-06-17 14:40:25
@misc{8977553,
  abstract     = {{The intent of this essay has been to examine how well certain permit conditions correlates with the interests and purposes they are supposed to provide basis for. The environmental protection is to be determined in the permit conditions, and thus specify the main environmental regulations in order to prevent and deter health risks or environmental damages that stem from the operation. Licence conditions should also specify what requirements the operator has to comply with, in order to keep his operations or business within the set values. Furthermore, licence conditions have to be formulated in a way so that regulatory authorities, the police and prosecutors can control the operations. Said agencies thereby have an interest in licence and conditions being formulated in a way that provides a possibility to enforce them through supervision or sanctions.

In order for the conditions to achieve their expected purposes, they may need to be formulated in different ways. From an environmental standpoint, licence conditions may need to be flexible, whilst from a penal view, unambiguousness is required. The Environmental Code committee has however expressed that the main function of licence conditions should be to minimize negative impacts on health and environment and enable regulatory authorities to direct standards and intervene in case of violations. Namely, regulatory authorities will still be able to set demands on and help the operator in making sure that the conditions are being kept and limits potential emissions. This is possible even if the conditions aren’t formulated in a way so that they might form basis for penal consequences. Despite this, the Supreme Court rejected, in the case NJA 2006 p. 310, a flexible licence condition. This condition was proposed by the Environmental Court and was formulated from an environmental standpoint. The Supreme Court namely prioritized the penal view, and concluded that the condition could not form basis for penal consequences because of its vagueness. The condition however served an important environmental purpose, as it was proposed in line with the Environmental Code. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling prioritized the operator’s legal certainty before the environmental protection. The traditional view on legal certainty is namely interpreted in favor of the operator, as it first and foremost considers the operator’s right to conduct business. It has however come in to question in doctrine if the legal certainty concept should also consider the public’s legal certainty in the environmental field, since the environment has a vast impact on our public health. Predictability is reduced within the environmental field if the Environmental Code is not properly expressed within the conditions. In criminal law, however, standards for predictability for the operator are set even higher, due to the principle of legality. As a result the interest of the operator exceeds the interest of the environment, which affects the licence conditions.

Later on, the ruling in NJA 2006 p. 310 became precedential. The Supreme Court’s statement that conditions had to be formulated so as to guarantee the operator’s legal certainty, and should also be able to form basis for criminal proceedings, was an important reason why the Environmental Court changed its practice when formulating conditions. This furthermore led to the discarding of target values. Even though target values were discarded in order to ensure legal certainty for the operator, the effect was rather the opposite in certain cases. Legal certainty for the operators was actually reduced in cases when violations were not caused by negligence; i.e. when the operators simply could not control their emission values. Consequently, violations of target values in these cases would not be able to form basis for criminal consequences, since the operators must be able to oversee and control thier emission values, also in order to be held accountable for violations of conditions. 

Target values served an important purpose in cases when emissions where hard to control. Since target values allowed the operator to rectify exceeding emissions before sanctions could be imposed, target values ensured the operator’s legal certainty when values of emissions were hard to predict or measure. For example, in cases of low level mercury emissions in process drainage systems, there were no reliable methods of measurement to establish the correct amount of emissions. Noise emissions are also problematic to measure, due do adjacent activities that are out of the operator’s control, which affect the overall values. Even gas emissions can be problematic for the operator to measure in a reliable way. As a result of the operator’s decreased legal certainty, stemming from the discarding of target values, the set values of emission could in some cases be raised or, as it was suggested in MÖD 2009:9, conditions might not be provided for at all. Therefore it would be hard to say that the discarding of target values was appropriate in such cases, neither from a legal certainty - or environmental perspective - nor, thusly, from a criminal law perspective. If it were not for the discarded target values, perhaps a balanced approach to the formulation of conditions could be established between the different perspectives. Possibly, more focus should have been directed to establish when target values should be applied. 

In my essay I have come to the conclusion that if the interest of criminal law, or the interest of the operator’s legal certainty is prioritized, the environmental protection will not have its intended impact on conditions.}},
  author       = {{Palm, Eline}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Villkorsskrivning i miljöfarlig verksamhet - Hur utformning av begränsningsvärden kan påverka rättssäkerheten och miljöhänsynen}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}