Original language


Date of text
Type of court
National - higher court
Court name
Supreme Court
Seat of court
Reference number
Decided Case No. 861/2540
Protected Areas, Standing, Wetlands
Free tags
Environment gen.

The Plaintiffs claimed that the resolution of the Cabinet approving construction of buildings in the disputed area, which the Cabinet previously decided to reserve as a water catchment area and which was an important wetland which should be declared as a protected area, was unlawful and violated public rights of the Plaintiffs and people living nearby.


The Court determined that the disputed area was not declared as a protected area and was not a public area. Therefore, the Plaintifs’ request that the area be established as a protected area was an exercise of rights which violated other persons’ rights and therefore was unenforcible. In addition, the Court found that the resolution was not in contrary to any legislation the Plaintiffs claimed. The Cabinet therefore exercised its discretionary power lawfully.


The Court further determined that the public rights raised by the Plaintiffs were not rights which the Plaintiffs were specially injured which would give rise to the Plaintiffs’ standing to sue. The Court decided that the Plaintiffs had standing only for the claim that their rights were affected by the Revenue Department‘s denial of request for information without providing reasons.