CYIL vol. 7 (2016)

374

BIRUTĖ PRANEVIČIENĖ – VIOLETA VASILIAUSKIENĖK

CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ

a communication by an NGO concerning the decision-making process related to the

construction of the NPP in Ostrovets. The NGO had not convinced the Committee

that Belarus had violated Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Aarhus Convention, regarding

their particular request of information, as even though “not all information provided

on facts and the interpretation of the Convention was accurate and complete […],

nevertheless, the information provided might have reflected the current knowledge

of the authorities. The requests were formulated in a manner that assumed a certain

level of interpretation of facts, and the replies reflected this interpretation. Thus the

authorities provided the information that was held by them at that time and there is

no evidence that they knowingly provided inaccurate and incomplete information.”

On the other hand, analysing the participation of the public in the environmental

assessment procedure, and the information provided for this purpose, the conclusion

of the Committee was much stricter. The issue at question was that Belarus had

provided only the short version of the EIA documentation available (about 100 pages)

and had at first not informed the public and other states that a longer version (about

1000 pages) was available. Later on, the information about the longer copy was

announced (and only during the hearings of the opinions of the members of the

public), but the full report was only available in one particular place without the

right to make copies of the documentation. The Committee stated that overall

economic interests as such “are not sufficient in order to reasonably restrict access

to environmental information”.

The Committee further emphasized that “in the

Committee’s view “copies” does, in fact, require that the whole documentation be

available close to the place of residence of the person requesting information or

entirely in electronic form, if this person lives in another town or city. According

to the facts presented in this case, access to information was restricted in the

Directorate of the NPP in Minsk only and no copies could be made.”

Therefore

the Committee found that Belarus “failed to comply with Article 6, paragraph 6,

and Article 4, paragraph 1 (b), of the [Aarhus] Convention.”

Furthermore, the

subsequent meetings of the parties stressed that Belarus is still in non-compliance

with some of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention.

As the Ministry of Environment of the Lithuanian Republic has stated, the

Republic of Lithuania is still waiting for answers to relevant questions – that is, “why

Belarus, being able to choose from over 70 available site options for the construction

UNECE ‘Findings and recommendations with regard to communication ACCC/C/2009/37

concerning compliance by Belarus’ (adopted by the Compliance Committee on 24 September 2010)’

(Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-

making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Fourth session, Chisinau, 29 June –1 July

2011)ECE/MP.PP//2011/11/Add.2.

Ibid