For cutting down a protected maple – community service and a fine of 23,650 euros / Article

The Court of Cassation refused to initiate cassation proceedings, because it was found that the defense attorney of the accused basically repeated the arguments of the appeal, which the court has already evaluated and rejected with reasons.

The court has reasonedly rejected the defendant’s version that he cut down the maple named in the indictment on the basis of the tree felling permit issued to him.

The court has established that this permit was issued due to the defendant’s earlier application and allowed the removal of vegetation, that is, self-seeded trees and bushes, the trunk diameter of which is less than 20 centimeters, on agricultural lands.

Although this permit allowed the felling and removal of dangerous trees, the accused was aware that it did not allow the felling of maples, as in the most recent application he requested permission to cut down three maples. After examining this application, a permit was issued to cut down two maples, while regarding the maple named in the indictment, it was determined that it has reached the size of a protected tree – a big tree – and will be registered in the “Oak” natural data management system of the Nature Protection Board.

In the defendant’s view, it has not been proven in the case that he had received a municipal decision regarding a large tree in his possession, which is prohibited to be cut, as well as a notification on how this decision can be appealed, until the moment the big tree was cut down. Referring to legal norms, the court rejected this argument of the accused, stressing that the municipality did not have to make a separate decision to confirm the status of a felled maple as a big tree, because the status of a big tree is determined by an external regulatory act, when the tree reaches the size determined by the legislator. For this reason, deciding the issue of possible felling of a big tree is not within the competence of the municipality.

The accused, as a person whose property is located in the territory of a nature park, has the obligation to identify and observe the conditions and peculiarities of the management of such property, but when planning any activities on his property, to familiarize himself with the legal regulation of the planned activities.

Report a bug