Environmental Supervision and the Environmental Legislation Reform

Review. The paper analyzes changes in the legal institute of state environmental supervision introduced since January 1, 2015 Federal Law dated July 21, 2014 № 219-FZ «On amendments to the Federal Law "On environmental protection" and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation ". Purpose: to assess legislative innovations in terms of their adequacy, effectiveness and coherence. Methods: in the course of the study the following general scientific and specific scientific methods of scientific knowledge were applied: dialectical method, formal logical method, formal legal method, comparative law method, legal drafting method. Results: the author concludes that a law-maker failed to avoid numerous legal gaps and conflicts of law when updating environmental legislation. In particular, peculiarities of organizing and conducting inspections when carrying out State environmental supervision (except for such a category of inspection as land inspection) were not defined. Identifying an adversely affected object as an object of state supervision causes difficulties when separating powers of federal and regional authorities of competent jurisdiction. It is obvious that one business entity can operate several objects that meet different requirements - namely, of federal and regional supervision. Accordingly, new rules will not only result in an increase number of inspections and audits held by authorities of different levels. Uncertainty in the area of separating powers regulatory authorities in practice would cause the next wave of cases with regard to challenging actions and decisions made made as a result of inspections and audits. The author considers that the abolition of rules preventing the duplication of audits was absolutely ungrounded. The introduction of new criteria for differentiation of objects of supervision requires updating of lists of facilities that are subject to federal environmental supervision. Such work has not been carried out by authorized authorities so far raising doubts concerning the legitimacy of inspections and audits carried out since July of the year 2015. Conclusions: identified gaps and conflicts should be eliminated as soon as possible. Otherwise, the reform of the state environmental management will not be put into practice.

state environmental management, environmental monitoring, state environmental supervision, separation of powers, environmental legislation, adversely affected objects, object of supervision, objects of federal supervision, inspection

1. Анисимова К. Л., Данилова Н. В. Правовое регулирование муниципального земельного контроля: проблемы и пути решения // Вестник Тюменского государственного университета. - 2011. - № 3.

2. Анисимова К. Л., Садовская Т. Д. Государственный экологический контроль как гарантия экологической безопасности // Императивы безопасного и устойчивого развития межсистемного комплекса «общество-человек-природа» / под науч. ред. В. В. Зыкова. - Тюмень, 2010.

3. Васильева М. И. Управление в сфере охраны окружающей природной среды: экологическая политика и право // Экологическое право. - 2001. - № 3.

4. Гейт Н. А. Экологический контроль и нормирование загрязнения окружающей среды как факторы эффективности природоохранной деятельности // Общество и право. - 2011. - № 3.

5. Епифанов И. К., Мальцева Н. Н. О совершенствовании управления природопользованием при разграничении функций и реализации полномочий государственного экологического контроля органами исполнительной власти // Российская юстиция. - 2011. - № 7.

6. Заславская Н. М. Проблемы построения современной функциональной организации государственного экологического контроля // Экологическое право. - 2010. - № 3.

7. Кичигин Н. В. Совершенствование экологического контроля // Экологическое право. - 2007. - № 3.

8. Пономарев М. В. Круглый стол «Правовые проблемы государственного, муниципального и иных видов экологического контроля» // Экологическое право. - 2008. - № 4.