Nikol Žiha, Marko Sukačić

THE IMPACT OF EU NATURE RESTORATION LAW ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS – BETWEEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE (IN)COMPATIBILITY WITH THE ROMAN LEGALTRADITION

Introduction

The impact of eu nature restoration law on private property rights – between the environmental protection and the (in)compatibility with the roman legaltradition. Explore the EU Nature Restoration Law's impact on private property rights, especially its compatibility with Croatia's Roman legal tradition. Balances environmental protection goals with ownership rights.

Abstract

Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 (EU Nature Restoration Law) is the first continent - wide comprehensive law aimed at restoring ecosystems, habitats, and species in the EU. Entering into force on 18 August 2024, the Regulation obliges all Member States to adopt effective restoration measures without delay, with the objective of covering at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030, and ensuring that all ecosystems in need of restoration are addressed by 2050. Given that over 80% of Europe’s natural habitats are currently in poor condition, the EU Nature Restoration Law introduces legally binding targets that aim to reverse biodiversity loss and improve the ecological integrity of the Union’s territory. In order to reach the goals, it is unavoidable that the restoration measures will affect property rights and create a need to supplement existing legal remedies for subjects whose rights will be affected by the restoration measures. As the regulation of property rights—particularly ownership— falls within the exclusive competence of each Member State, the legal and constitutional traditions regarding property vary significantly across the Union. In Croatia, building up on Roman legal tradition, ownership represents a most comprehensive right over an object. As the Nature Restoration Law intervenes in how property may be used, questions arise as to whether the required measures are compatible with the traditional understanding of ownership. This paper examines the implications of the EU Nature Restoration Law on private property rights, using Croatia as an example. It begins by outlining the definition and core attributes of dominium in Roman law and its reception in Croatian legal doctrine. The analysis then turns to the key provisions of the EU Nature Restoration Law, highlighting the absence of explicit mechanisms for reconciling ecological objectives with property rights as fundamental rights. Finally, the paper offers conclusions on the significance of nature restoration efforts, thereby underlining the necessity of harmonising environmental goals with the inviolability of private ownership as a cornerstone of modern legal systems.

Review

This paper addresses a timely and critical legal issue: the potential conflict arising from the new EU Nature Restoration Law and existing private property rights within Member States. By focusing on Croatia, a nation with a strong Roman legal tradition where ownership (*dominium*) is understood as a most comprehensive right, the authors meticulously explore the challenges posed by legally binding restoration targets. The core argument hinges on the observation that while the EU Regulation aims for ambitious ecological recovery across 20% of EU land and sea by 2030, its implementation inevitably intersects with, and potentially limits, how private property may be used, thereby creating a tension with fundamental property rights enshrined in national legal systems. The methodology of the paper is well-structured, beginning with an outline of Roman law's definition of *dominium* and its reception into Croatian legal doctrine, providing a robust foundation for the subsequent analysis. This historical and conceptual grounding is then effectively contrasted with the key provisions of the EU Nature Restoration Law. A significant contribution of this work lies in its identification of the absence of explicit mechanisms within the EU Regulation for reconciling its ecological objectives with property rights as fundamental rights, a lacuna that underscores the potential for legal and constitutional friction. The Croatian case study serves as an excellent illustrative example, highlighting how a comprehensive, continent-wide environmental mandate can clash with deeply entrenched national legal traditions concerning private ownership. Ultimately, the paper compellingly argues for the necessity of harmonizing ambitious environmental goals with the inviolability of private ownership, which it posits as a cornerstone of modern legal systems. It not only illuminates a pressing legal challenge but also implicitly calls for a more nuanced approach in crafting future EU legislation that anticipates and proactively addresses potential conflicts with fundamental national rights. This analysis offers valuable insights for policymakers, legal scholars, and practitioners grappling with the implementation of the EU Nature Restoration Law and similar directives across the Union, underscoring the delicate balance required between environmental protection and established legal traditions.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.