Abstract
The article discusses the legal problems of compensation for environmental damage on the basis of judicial acts of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, as well as the practice of arbitrazh courts. Trends such as the priority of monetary compensation for damage over recovery in kind and the lack of correlation between the amount of compensation and the costs of recultivation have been noted. Assessment of the damage using calculating methods, as well as the way of spending the amounts recovered, in the author’s opinion, deprives monetary redress of its compensatory nature. As a result, the civil law remedy performs an improper fiscal function and provides only general prevention, but not the restoration of the disturbed state of the environment. The author proposes to change approaches to environmental damage redress, taking into account the rules on “colouring” of environmental payments that have already entered into force.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call