Börsiteade

Pealkiri

The Supreme Court made a decision in administrative case No 3-16-2267, and left partly unsatisfied the complaint of AS Tallinna Vesi for compensation of damage caused by the Regulation No 99

Teade

Yesterday,  on  the  20 February  2020, the  Supreme  Court  made  a decision in
administrative  case No 3-16-2267, and left  partly unsatisfied the complaint of
AS  Tallinna Vesi for compensation of damage  caused by the Regulation No 99, of
29 November  2019 of the  Government of  the Estonian  Republic, as  well as the
related  penalty fee for late  payment. AS Tallinna Vesi  submitted the claim on
the  basis  that  the  limits  on  zinc,  copper  and  chrome established by the
government were unconstitutional.

On  13 November  2016, AS  Tallinna  Vesi  filed  a  complaint  with the Tallinn
Administrative  Court  under  the  State  Liability  Act for the compensation of
direct  damage in the amount of EUR 1,136,191 (including excess pollution charge
of EUR 1,002,138 and the income tax paid in the amount of EUR 134,053) caused by
Article  8 (2) of the Regulation No 99 as well as corresponding penalty for late
payment.  The damage occurred due to the unlawful limits being established since
1 January 2013. After the entry into force of Article 8 (2) of the Regulation No
99 it was stipulated that the wastewater should be as pure as the water in water
bodies.  The established standards for wastewater  are even stricter compared to
the  standards stipulated for  drinking water. As  a result of  this change, the
limit  value for copper, zinc  and total chromium in  wastewater declined to the
extent  that it was impossible for AS  Tallinna Vesi to ensure the compliance of
wastewater  discharged into  water according  to the environmental requirements.
Therefore,  AS Tallinna Vesi was required to pay an increased environmental fee,
and  lost the opportunity for reducing pollution charges under the Environmental
Charges  Act. AS Tallinna Vesi found that  the damage is caused by a significant
breach  of  the  public  authority's  obligation  as  the  Regulation  No 99 was
established  without  any  substantive  analysis  (including  the  ignorance  of
investment  needs of companies who are bound with nature and water). Explanatory
memorandum  to the Regulation No 99 does  not indicate how the established limit
values  (which do  not have  a transitional  period) are  achievable, especially
considering  that these values are not  technologically achievable even to date.
Unjustifiably stricter requirements were set for discharging wastewater into the
sea   compared   to   discharges  into  rivers  and  lakes.  Unconstitutionality
(disproportionality)  of the established limits is confirmed by the amendment of
the  Regulation No 99, since  1 January 2017, when the  previous limits were re-
established. If the relevant natural circumstances, technological possibilities,
economic  effects and technological capabilities  of the undertakings would have
been  duly taken into account when establishing the Regulation No 99, the limits
would  have been stipulated to the extent permitted by the law and the damage to
AS Tallinna Vesi would have never occurred.

The  Supreme Court found in  the 20 Febuary 2020 decision that  the damage to AS
Tallinna Vesi was not caused by the state legislation, i.e Regulation No 99, but
was  caused by the special  water permit issued to  the company, on the basis of
which  also  the  obligation  to  pay  environmental  charges was determined. In
assessing  the legality of the Regulation No  99, the Supreme Court did not deem
it  necessary to  take into  account the  fact that  the company  was granted an
environmental  permit within the limits set by the Regulation No 99. Despite the
request  of the  Company, the  Supreme Court  also dismissed  the constitutional
review  proceedings of Regulation No 99 despite the fact that in 2017 the limits
for heavy metals were significantly reduced.

The  costs of  the proceedings  were left  to be  paid by  the Government of the
Estonian Republic.

Viive  Ligi, a judge of the Supreme Court, expressed a dissenting opinion on the
Supreme Court decision, and did not agree with the majority opinion according to
which  the  damage  claim  was  dismissed.  Viive  Ligi  found  that there was a
causational  link between the Regulation  No 99 adopted in 29 November 2019, and
the  damages caused to AS Tallinna Vesi and  the case should have been sent back
to the first instance.

Eliis Randver
Head of Customer Relations and Communication
Tallinna Vesi
(+372) 626 2275
[email protected]
(https://www.globenewswire.com/Tracker?data=hAJ24UQHUvoqVCwlPetCsp1Y2zyIxZrf0aTS
FP92WKK2lkCyIkswCOVHKKn9xNyL_4RoGSvzHbig_kpBv0hg7scbYgBLFdFkwSSYyFWfDf1oE3D38YQc
SodbzgMYBEEwzb3O4zId4wETgHW0UHmfKBtoQv-
K2xAJWrDzdAtnCu_9cRYzlNnLZ4OZtFoR30rBw9yhZ5AG9KATr8RTIC4R7QUq1bgs4lF4USHVG6_Xdxt
QAdyU1wFbPLwtwJhkHwEhCpv54HOWenwUnVrKX-hSnQ==)