The Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Investment Promotion Law adopted by the 49th National Assembly caused serious public opposition already at the stage of discussion in the National Assembly.
Against the background of public protests throughout the country and publicly expressed negative expert opinions, the law was adopted by the parliamentary majority without taking into account the general dissatisfaction. Legally, a presidential veto was imposed on a large part of the adopted changes, with reasons close to those reflected in the public protests.
Literally on the last day of the activity of the National Assembly, an attempt was made, in an extraordinary session, to overcome the veto.
The necessary parliamentary majority of 121 people’s representatives was not achieved, as only the deputies from the GERB-SDS and DPS parliamentary groups voted “for” the re-acceptance of the changes, and the other parliamentary groups were “against”.
With this, the legislative changes subject to the presidential veto were finally rejected, at least during the mandate of the current 49th National Assembly.
What were the controversial provisions
A certain circle of priority investment projects – strategic or of national importance, to be serviced by the administration in terms that are one second shorter than those provided for in the relevant normative act.
The biggest concern is the fact that these shortened terms are applied including to the issuance of opinions or when conducting consultations under the Environmental Protection Act in the course of environmental assessment procedures or environmental impact assessment.
When the competent authorities do not make a decision or express an opinion within the specified period, this will be considered tacit consent, i.e. the investment intention or the specific project is considered approved.
The definition of “object of strategic importance” is expanded, allowing the designation of such objects by a decision of the National Assembly
The term in which decisions on environmental impact assessment (EIA), respectively the decision not to carry out an EIA, lose legal effect, due to the fact that the implementation of the investment proposal has not started, is increased from 5 to 10 years. At the same time, the effect of such decisions, adopted before the entry into force of the law, is extended by up to 10 years from the date of their issuance.
The abolition of two-instance judicial control over administrative acts and in particular the decisions related to EIA and environmental assessment procedures
A number of objections can be made to the proposed amendments, including those set forth in the presidential veto.
The determination and administrative service of individual objects and projects, such as those of strategic importance or those of national importance, presupposes the conduct of a preliminary and in-depth study of the issues within the competence of the administration, as well as the opinion of the public, i.e. as wide a circle as possible, whose rights and legitimate interests may potentially be affected.
The acceleration of the procedures in relation to the objects of strategic and national importance cannot be at the expense of the protection of the healthy environment and access to justice.
The shortening of the deadlines in relation to the procedures under the Environmental Protection Act in the implementation of priority investment projects threatens the achievement and guarantee of the standards for the protection of the environment and human health. Such a sharp reduction in the deadlines for adjudication, carried out without thorough research and without measures to strengthen the capacity of the administration, poses a risk to the quality of the assessments carried out, and therefore to the overall effectiveness of the preventive procedures.
On even greater grounds, the introduction of a legal presumption of tacit consent, which is atypical for the administrative process, in the event of the body’s failure to issue a decision within the time limit, is contrary to the spirit and principles of environmental legislation and, in particular, the preventive principles for the protection of the environment and human health.
It is inadmissible to introduce exceptions to the general principle of two-instance judicial control over administrative acts precisely in matters related to the environment and human health, which most widely affect the public interest. In this sense, the judgment of an independent court must be guaranteed, both on the legality of the decisions of the administrative bodies, and the possibility for the affected parties to activate the judicial supervision over the legality of the issued first-instance court decisions.
Extending the validity period of already expired or expiring environmental decisions will undoubtedly have an impact on the realization and speed of development of the investment process, but the stake should not be the violation of the constitutional right of citizens to a healthy and favorable environment. Doubts should not be ignored that through such an extension of the deadlines there is a real danger of “revival” of projects that caused public dissatisfaction.
Last but not least, when the law was passed, they were
committed substantial procedural violations
which summarize already “established” parliamentary practices.
Most of the controversial amendments were proposed after the adoption of the first reading of the main bill by the Council of Ministers.
The proposals were made by a group of people’s representatives from GERB-SDS and DPS, and they are outside the scope and reasons of the bill adopted in the first reading. The proposals are mainly related to the change of other laws and in particular ZOOS, ZUT and ZEVI.
Due to the transition between the two readings, the proposals were voted on by the National Assembly only once, which contradicts the imperative requirement of the Constitution that laws be discussed and adopted with two votes, which are carried out in separate sittings.
No public discussion was held on the proposals of the people’s representatives, there is no preliminary impact assessment, proper justification of all aspects of the proposals, as well as financial justification.
Moreover, regarding the proposed amendments, a categorical negative position was expressed both by the public and by individual experts, and it was not taken into account in any way during the adoption of the bill.
The public interest was protected at the last moment, mainly due to the lack of the necessary majority on the part of the parliamentary groups that initially supported it. Nevertheless, there is a positive practice – when public attitudes are adequately expressed and reasoned, they influence public institutions, and the president and the majority in the National Assembly ultimately make a reasoned decision in line with the public interest.
