Načelo „zagađivač plaća“ u ekološkom zakonodavstvu Srbije i uporednom pravu

Abstract

У раду се указује на важност примене начела „загађивач плаћа“ у циљу заштите животне средине. У оквиру анализе датог начела даје се релевантно поређење постојећег модела регулисања и примене начела „загађивач плаћа“ у праву Републике Србије са појединим решењима у упоредном праву и пракси. Будући да дефиниција начела отвара питања о еколошкој штети, у раду се указује на значај Директиве 2004/35/ЕЗ као незаобилазне на нашем путу ка усаглашавању са правним тековинама ЕУ. У закључном делу пружен је осврт на отворена питања везана за Поглавље о животној средини и климатским променама, Поглавље 27, као основне изазове зацртане Републици Србији за период 2011–2030. године.

Priorities are highlighted – investment in preserving and protecting the environment, with the aim of strengthening the existing system of economic instruments. Refund costs are not only desirable or necessary, they have become an imperative of today and an absolute requirement of the European Union, which will make the compensation of costs fully guaranteed by the application of the “polluter pays” principle. Further, economic growth should be harmonized with investments in cleaner production, energy efficiency and environmental protection. Noting that a passive approach with high economic growth will lead to degradation of the environment, it will also bring about a growing economic loss. Costs of using natural resources and their degradation should be included in the costs of production and do not deviate from the path of European integration, applying the principle of sustainable development and the principle of “polluter pays”. Effective application of the “polluter pays” principle should act on economic actors in the most preventive sense, i.e. in that way, the potential polluter would rather decide on investing in protective measures that would prevent the occurrence of the damage than to bear the costs of the consequences of removing it, which costs are exceeded in excess of the amount invested for preventive purposes. We see that the chapter on Environmental Pollution Responsibility in the Environmental Protection Institute starts with a preventive guide, in order to further identify the characteristics of the sustainable development principle in the future. This leads to the conclusion that the prevention principle is guided by the avoidance of potential environmental pollution. In the law on environmental protection, liability for damage is regulated separately from liability for pollution. Environmental pollutants are responsible for polluters as well as for persons who, by unlawful or improper action, have allowed or allowed pollution to occur. According to the principle of objective liability, the polluter will be responsible for proving the existence of damage and the causal link between his actions and the resulting harmful consequences, and the polluter shall bear the costs of assessing the damage and the harmful consequences that have arisen. Also, the polluter is obliged to compensate for the expenses incurred due to urgent interventions undertaken at the time of the damage, which were necessary for limiting and preventing negative effects on the environment. Law on environmental protection, as sedes materia in this field, provides functional guidelines in the field of regulation of the “polluter pays” principle. Concerns will first go to account for damage liability and the issue of insurance against it, it is modest to say that our legislation simply does not have a system that addresses the issue of environmental damage or liability for environmental damage. It would be desirable to regulate the legal protection of the mentioned issues, in which it is optimal to see models of neighboring countries. In addition to the law on environmental protection, it is necessary to include effective legal and other regulations, as well as harmonized work of the authorities when applying the principle.