Infringements of rights and other improprieties in connection with the felling of trees in Kossuth Square in front of the Parliament building – an inquiry of the Ombudsman

Press release:

Infringements of rights and other improprieties in connection with the felling of trees in Kossuth Square in front of the Parliament building – an inquiry of the Ombudsman

The felling licences for the trees and bushes in the northern part of Kossuth Square in Budapest were issued without regard to the guarantees of publicity, transparency and legal certainty. On the initiative of the Deputy Commissioner responsible for the interests of future generations Ombudsman Máté Szabó has inquired into the circumstances.

On 23 February 2012 the Office of Parliament asked for a felling licence for trees from the notary of the district's local government. One day later, on 24 February 2012, the notary granted the licence. Since the Office of Parliament had waived its right of appeal on the same day, the notary declared the licence final. On the basis of the final licence the trees in the northern part of Kossuth Square were felled on 28 and 29 February.

The inquiry of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights found several infringements of rights and other improprieties.

At the time the felling licence was issued the applicant did not have an archaeological licence yet, because the Government Office issued it only on 27 February, thus three days later.

At the time the felling licence was issued the project was only in the planning phase. This means that archaeological and felling licences were granted for the planned project at a time when the building licensing proceedings had not even started.

An authority cannot issue felling licences until it determines the manner for the replacement of the cut down trees. The investment project, however, had not yet reached the phase where one could have responsibly determined the place and extent of replacement, so the applicant requested that full pecuniary compensation be prescribed in the decision.

It constitutes an impropriety that the notary completed the proceedings in only one day. According to the provisions laid down in rules of law, one should have had recourse to service by public notice, whereby civil society organisations representing environment protection interests could have used their client rights laid down in the Environment Protection Act.