Vem betalar för artskyddet i skogen? – Om skogsägares möjligheter att få ersättning vid avverkningsförbud på grund av artskyddsförordningen

Sammanfattning: Forestry serves as a valuable economic resource for individual forest owners. Simultaneously, forests play a crucial role in preserving biodiversity by providing habitats for protected species. The Swedish Species Protection Ordinance (2007:845) contains provisions aimed at safeguarding these species, which can restrict forest owners' freedom to use their properties through prohibiting logging. The objective of this thesis is to clarify whether forest owners may be entitled to compensation when logging is prohibited under this ordinance. The legal landscape surrounding this issue is uncertain, as there are no compensation provisions linked to the Species Protection Ordinance. To address this matter, a legal dogmatic approach is employed, involving an analysis of laws, preparatory works, and case law. Legal literature is used to present diverse perspectives and to enhance comprehension of the legal aspects involved. The thesis concludes that, generally, forest owners do not have a right to compensation under the law or constitution for the restrictions imposed by logging bans based on the Swedish Species Protection Ordinance. The reason for this is that the provisions in the ordinance are considered to specify the general environmental considerations in Chapter 2 of The Swedish Environmental Code (1998:808), which forest owners are expected to comply with without receiving compensation. However, the Supreme Court has in the case T 538-22 stated that under specific circumstances, forest owners may according to general legal principles have a right to compensation for logging bans based on the Swedish Species Protection Ordinance. This requires that the logging ban significantly impedes the current land use, and that the restriction is particularly burdensome, making it unreasonable for the forest owner to bear the consequences alone. Through a proportionality assessment, the forest owner's obligation to consider the environment without compensation is weighed against the reasons supporting the granting of compensation.