In recent ReLex cases, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania overturned established court practice of rejecting challenges to the legality of logging permits based on their derivative nature, and confirmed the need for interim protective measures when the legality of such permits is questioned.
While public opposition to increasing deforestation is quite visible, court practice in challenging the legality of logging is rather scarce and outdated due to questionable legal interest and statutory limitations in challenging ten-year private forest management plans on the basis of which logging permits are issued.
In recent cases we have had the opportunity to challenge this established practice. In case eAS-230-520/2025, the Supreme Court emphasised that although Article 39 of the Logging Permits Regulation provides for specific cases in which a logging permit may be revoked by the Forestry Authority itself, the Regulation does not contain any provisions stating that a logging permit issued by the Authority is an intermediate procedural decision which does not give rise to any substantive rights and obligations for persons.
In case eAS-403-624/2025, the Supreme Court overturned the Regional Administrative Court’s reasoning that the logging permit (the document granting the right to harvest the forest) was inseparable from the forest management project and that the applicants based their request for interim measures only on assumptions, that they will not be able to use the forest surrounding their homestead and that the damage caused by the destruction of plant and mushroom species and/or habitats protected in Lithuania or in the European Union which does not constitute grounds for the application of interim protective measures, i.e. the suspension of the permits. The Supreme Court emphasised, inter alia, that the validity of the Authority’s decision to approve the internal forest management project for private forests does not in itself lead to the conclusion that the logging permit, which is the document granting the right to felling, is lawful.
The Chamber ruled that the work carried out under the disputed permits would lead to the felling of trees, i.e. the destruction of the forest, the conservation of which is essentially at issue in the administrative proceedings. Consequently, failure to take interim protective measures before the final judgment in the case is given could cause irreparable damage and, if the complaint is upheld, make it impossible to restore the situation as it was.
ReLex
