the existing peat deposit will be extended and peat will be extracted there if the results of the EIA allow it. District Governor approved only the part of the Comprehensive Plan that does not affect the rights of PLC Tartu Jõujaam. The latter is of the opinion that neither convincing considerations to dismiss the proposal made by it nor the considerations of different interests appear in the Regulation and these constitute significant faults of the discretion. The respondent found that the Comprehensive Plan did not violate the rights of PLC Tartu Jõujaam, as the refusal of the extraction permit was not decided by it. The partial enactment of the Comprehensive Plan would damage the interests of the rural municipality. In the respondent’s opinion, possible interests of PLC Tartu Jõujaam have been given sufficient consideration. Tartu District Governor, involved in the case by the court, supported the action of PLC Tartu Jõujaam. The Administrative Court of Tartu satisfied the action in its judgment of April 20, 2009 and annulled the Regulation enacting the Comprehensive Plan partially, i.e. in the part of Keressaare bog. The court reasoned its decision as follows. The District Governor has given its approval to enact the Comprehensive Plan only partially and has not considered it to be possible that the Comprehensive Plan of the Rural Municipality of Vara could be enacted in the part affecting the rights of the PLC Tartu Jõujaam. The respondent did not have the approval of the District Governor to enact the Comprehensive Plan of Vara for the northern part of the Keressaare bog. If the local government cannot enact the Comprehensive Plan as a whole without the approval of the District Governor, then the local government cannot enact the Comprehensive Plan in the part for which the District Governor has not given its approval as well. If this was not the case, the approval of the District Governor as an administrative measure would lose its purpose. Merely the fact that the respondent has violated applicable laws in its enactment of the Comprehensive Plan of the Rural Municipality brings about the satisfaction of the action and the partial annulment of the contested Regulation. The legitimate expectation to receive the extraction permit after the fulfillment of the prerequisites determined in the decision of the District Governor of 1997, has also been violated. The District Court of Tartu refused to change the judgment of the administrative court, but amended its reasoning. The District Court did not agree with the administrative court in the part of the supervisory competences of the District Governor and found that the enactment of the plan was unlawful because of the mistakes of discretion: the contested Regulation does not point out the important facts of the case, nor the specific interests and rights of different interested persons that the Council of the Rural Municipality should have considered and did consider. The reasons submitted in the Regulation do not convince the court that in a case where the EIA was still under way in the course of the application for the extension of peat deposit, the consideration of different interests has been conducted rationally and all the important facts and interests have been considered regarding the proposals and the application for partial non-enactment of the Comprehensive Plan submitted by the PLC Tartu Jõujaam.
Peat extraction in Möllatsi94 With the Order of the Environmental Authority of Tartu District of August 25, 2003, permit for extraction of mineral resources for peat extraction in the peat deposit of Möllatsi was issued to PLC Tartu Jõujaam with the total area of 218,4 ha.
94 Access at: Judgment o 2-3-153/2004 of the District Court of Tartu of 15th of September 2004 In the administrative action brought by Peeter Lääne, Natalia Trofimova, Erkki Ergma, Imre Taal, Imants Trofimov, Vahur Siimon, Ene Saluri ja Monika Guk to have the Order No 41-1-4/129 of the Environmental Authority of Tartu District of August 25, 2003 annuled. – http://kola.just.ee/ (6.04.2011). ESTONIAN MIRES: INVENTORY OF HABITATS
171