The official publication of regulatory administrative acts is a fundamental requirement of the rule of law. It ensures legal certainty, transparency and public access to the rules governing the exercise of public authority. These principles are particularly important in environmental matters, where administrative decisions may have a direct impact on natural resources and the environment.
In today’s decision in the ReLex-led case No. eI2-3106-872/2026 concerning the regulation of logging in Lithuanian state forests, the Regional Administrative Court addressed the legal nature of orders issued by the Minister of Environment approving annual main and intermediate forest logging quotas.
Lithuania’s forests are facing increasing pressure from logging. State-approved main forest felling quotas have reached their highest levels since the restoration of independence, with an exceptionally high annual allowance of 11,850 hectares (expressed in clear-cut equivalent) established for 2019–2023 and subsequently maintained for the 2024–2028 period. Similar pressures affect privately owned forests. Annual forest clearings reportedly account for approximately 20,000 hectares or 1% of the total forest-covered area. Approximately 3,000 additional hectares reportedly subject to sanitary clear-cutting each year. The timber sector generates approximately 2 billion euros in added value annually, whilst the broader timber and furniture cluster accounts for around 7 per cent of the country’s total GDP. In 2024, exports of timber and timber products totalled EUR 4.2 billion, accounting for 11.4 per cent of the country’s total exports.
Article 14(5) of the Law on Forests of the Republic of Lithuania stipulates that the annual quota for main forest fellings in state-owned forests is approved by the Government. The established annual quota for main forest fellings may not be exceeded, except in the event of natural disasters where the volume of stands that have dried out, been uprooted, broken, burnt or otherwise damaged on a national scale accounts for more than one quarter of the annual felling quota. The total annual forest felling quota for all types of fellings in the country may not exceed annual timber growth.
Article 14(6) of the same Law stipulates that the scope of intermediate forest use in the country’s state-owned forests is determined by the Ministry of the Environment. The specific intermediate felling quotas are established by orders of the Minister of Environment. Furthermore, these ministerial orders establish binding felling quotas, which may differ from the maximum quotas set out in Government resolutions. Consequently, they play a significant role in shaping state forest management and protection policy.
From 2023 onwards, the Ministry ceased publishing these orders in the Register of Legal Acts (Teisės aktų registras).
Environmental Coalition (Aplinkosaugos koalicija) disagreed. Civil society must be given the opportunity to participate in decision-making on matters relating to forestry policy. Today, one year later, Regional administrative court ruled that we were right. In its decision, the Regional Administrative Court upheld the substance of the Client’s position. It confirmed that ministerial orders establishing main and intermediate forest felling quotas are normative administrative acts and must therefore be officially published. Such orders are also subject to public scrutiny.
The Court emphasised that decisions concerning forest management and logging quotas are not merely technical or internal administrative matters. They concern the use of public natural resources and have direct environmental consequences. Accordingly, interested members of the public must have an effective opportunity to participate in the decision-making processes shaping forestry policy. The Court therefore rejected the Ministry’s approach of treating these orders as merely internal administrative decisions or technical instructions to state forest managers.
The respondent argued that the applicant could still access the relevant ministerial orders through the Ministry’s website. The Court confirmed however, that the official publication of normative administrative acts is a fundamental safeguard of transparency and legal certainty. It explained that the possibility of accessing a legal act online does not, in itself, satisfy the statutory requirements governing official publication.
Importantly, the Court recognised the relevance of the applicant’s right to public participation under the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention). Given that the orders establish binding requirements governing the use of state forests and directly influence the scale of logging activities, their legal and practical significance extends beyond the relationship between the Ministry and state forest managers. They concern environmental interests and the use of natural resources, matters in which environmental organisations and the wider public have a legitimate interest. Failure to ensure official publication therefore undermines the transparency necessary for meaningful public participation within the meaning of Article 6 in environmental decision-making under the Aarhus Convention.
Beyond the technical question of publication, the Court reinforced the importance of ensuring that decisions affecting the environment are accessible, transparent and subject to meaningful public scrutiny.
ReLex
