Skogsägares ansvar för artskyddet - en studie av rätten till ersättning vid rådighetsinskränkning med anledning av artskyddsförordningen

Sammanfattning: Forest owners' right of disposition over their forestry property units might be limited by restriction under the Species Protection Ordinance. The restriction of use constitutes a potential violation of the right to property. A forest owner may be entitled to compensation if there is a correlated regulation that justifies compensation and if the restriction of use causes a significant difficulty for current land use. There are no rules available that justify compensation directly under the Species Protection Ordinance. Nevertheless, in the Environmental Code and the Constitution there are rules that may generate compensation. Furthermore, it is unclear to what extent the forest owner's obligation to observe environmental concern, due to the general rules of consideration, effects the right to compensation. The purpose of this legal essay is to determine whether a forest owner may be entitled to compensation in the event of a restriction of use of his forest property unit due to the Species Protection Ordination. The issue is examined based on a legal dogmatic method and is described from a critical perspective. The relationship between the right to compensation according to Swedish regulation and the ownership rights under the European Convention has been studied. In conclusion forest owners' right to compensation depends on what legal ground the restriction of use was decided. If a restriction is decided in connection with a consultation, the right to compensation can most likely be justified based on Chapter 31, Section 4 of the Environmental Code. In other cases, the right to compensation may possibly be deduced from Chapter 2, Section 15 of the Constitution. The assessment of whether a restriction of use leads to significant difficulties for current land use is determined based on how the forestry is being performed and the size of the intrusion due to the restriction. If a restriction relates to the general rules of consideration the main rule is that compensation is not paid. Exceptions can be made if a restriction, without compensation, is deemed disproportionate.