Reasonableness of identifying of a priority method of compensation for harm caused to the environment

Abstract

Civil law knows two ways of compensation for damage. At the same time, in jurisprudence and in the legal literature, natural compensation is often called the priority method of compensation for harm, caused to the environment. Nevertheless, there are doubts that the allocation of a priority method of compensation for harm, which will be presumed, is justified.
Choosing from two methods of compensation for harm, the court must establish the objective possibility of restoring the environment, the need for prompt action, their effectiveness for restoring the environment, and the existence of a restoration project developed and approved in compliance with the requirements of current legislation. The imposition of environmental restoration is ineffective and should not be allowed by the courts, including through the use of penalty. In case of failure of remedial measures or refusal of the delinquent to carry them out, the option of monetary compensation for harm is always available, including offsetting the costs of natural compensation for harm. At the same time, the simultaneous use of two methods of compensation for harm is unacceptable.