Here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the challenge of actions by the State Environmental Inspectorate regarding the assessment of damages for violations of environmental legislation and the cancellation of the order to eliminate violations.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that formal deficiencies in the execution of the inspection report, such as the absence of the signature of one of the officials, are not an independent basis for canceling the decisions of the controlling authority if there were no violations in the procedure of the inspection itself. The court emphasized that the inspection report is a document that records facts and value judgments and should be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence. It is important that the plaintiff did not refute the essence of the identified violations of environmental legislation, and his arguments were limited only to formal requirements for the execution of the report. The court also took into account that the appellate court properly assessed the established violations and reached a reasonable conclusion about their existence. In addition, the court of cassation referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which does not require a detailed response to each argument if the key arguments of the parties have been sufficiently assessed.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
: The court noted that it had departed from the previous conclusion of the Supreme Court in case No. 1440/1965/18 regarding the consequences of the absence of an official’s signature on the inspection report.
