1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The prosecutor appealed to the court with a claim to cancel the results of the auction and the permits for subsoil use issued to Cherembud LLC due to the absence of a mandatory environmental impact assessment report.<\/p>\n
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the state participates in the process through its bodies; however, in the absence of a specially authorized body to protect the interests of the state in such legal relations, the prosecutor has the right to apply to the court independently. The Court rejected the position of the appellate instance, which refused the claim solely because the prosecutor had chosen an “improper plaintiff” (the State Environmental Inspectorate of the Carpathian District instead of the central office). The Supreme Court stressed that an erroneous determination of the body in whose interests the prosecutor acts should not be an obstacle to the consideration of the case on the merits. The Court also noted that the legislation does not define a specific body authorized to challenge the procedure for granting special permits for subsoil use, therefore the prosecutor acts in the public interest. Consequently, the appellate court did not have the right to refuse the claim without examining the case on the merits, relying solely on formal procedural issues. In this case, the Supreme Court effectively departed from previous practice that required strict adherence to the definition of an “improper plaintiff” in cases where the prosecutor acts in the interests of the state, recognizing that in the absence of a body clearly defined by law, the prosecutor should not be restricted in the right to appeal to the court due to formal errors in identifying such a body.<\/p>\n
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal to resolve the dispute on the merits.<\/p>\n