The issuance of a forest logging permit is not proof that the forest is being logged or has been logged lawfully. The Regional Administrative Court has heard the first case confirming that neither a logging permit issued by the State Forest Service nor approval granted by the Protected Areas Directorate automatically precludes the possibility of a violation of environmental protection standards, and therefore cannot serve as a valid basis for rejecting a request to thoroughly investigate the alleged violations.
In the case that ReLex follows closely, the applicant submitted an application to the Environmental Protection Department (AAD), because of selective shelterwood logging that had been carried out in the Pratkūnai Geomorphological Reserve. According to the applicant, the logging was conducted without a proper inventory of the understory vegetation, resulting in its removal. The logging in the geomorphological reserve was carried out when the ground was not frozen, in violation of the prohibition established in Article 69 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Special Conditions for Land Use. The applicant further stated that the logging destroyed a habitat of the Bohemian Verpa (Ptychoverpa bohemica), a species protected at the European Union (EU) level. He therefore requested that the AAD assess the information provided, conduct an investigation, evaluate the environmental damage caused, and ensure that it is remedied or compensated.
However, on 22 December 2025, the AAD adopted the contested letter, in which it found that no violations had occurred. The respondent argued that the applicant was informed that the logging was carried out in accordance with a valid permit issued by the State Forest Service, which was based on an internal forest management plan that had been properly prepared and approved. This finding objectively means that the legality of the logging operations was assessed and that there were no grounds for finding violations of the law.
In its final judgment in case eI3-6592-860/2026, the court noted that the forest owner had been issued a forest harvesting permit in accordance with an approved internal forest management plan, which had even been endorsed by the Directorate of Protected Areas within the scope of its authority, however, this does not automatically mean that the aforementioned entity could not, in fact, have committed the violations alleged by the petitioner.
Existing court practice sets strict deadlines for filing appeals against issued forest-felling permits. Moreover, logging often begins as early as the next day, without giving the public a reasonable opportunity to verify its legality. Although the court’s decision does not address this pressing issue, it nevertheless offers hope that those responsible for repeated environmental violations during logging will not escape accountability. The adoption of an administrative act does not presume its legality, and each specific violation must be determined by assessing the actual consequences for the environment.
ReLex
