The Supreme Court has granted the Icelandic state and Landsvirkjun permission to appeal the Hvammsvirkjun case directly to the court, without going through the National Court.
This is stated in the Supreme Court’s decision, which was made last Friday and published today. It states that the state and Landsvirkjun requested leave to appeal on January 24th and 25th in a case brought by landowners along the Þjórsá River against them over the planned construction of the Hvammsvirkjun power plant.
The Reykjavík District Court ruled in favor of the landowners on January 15th and revoked the power plant permit for the Hvammsvirkjun power plant.The summary conclusions of the court are to reject the claim for the invalidation of the Fisheries Authority’s permit for the construction of Hvammsvirkjun, but to invalidate the Environment Agency’s authorization to modify the water body Þjórsá 1, from 9 April 2024, due to the planned construction at Hvammsvirkjun, and the decision of the Energy Authority of 12 September 2024 to grant Landsvirkjun a permit to construct and operate the Hvammsvirkjun power plant.
Consider the judgment simply wrong
Landsvirkjun decided shortly afterwards to request permission to appeal the case directly to the Supreme Court. In a press release it was stated that the reason for the appeal was simple, the company considered the judgment to be essentially wrong. “Therefore, it is far from possible to interpret the will of the legislator in the manner in which it is done.”
Has significant social significance
The Supreme Court’s decision states that the landowners’ claim for the invalidation of the Icelandic Fisheries Agency’s permit for the construction of the Hvammvirkjun power plant was rejected by the district court. On the other hand, the Environment Agency’s authorization to modify the water body Þjórsá 1 was revoked and the Energy Authority’s power plant permit was invalidated.
It was considered that a specific provision of the Water Management Act had not provided the Environment Agency with an adequate legal basis for the decision to authorize a modification of the water body Þjórsá 1 due to the planned construction of the Hvamms power plant. This had constituted a significant substantive flaw in the agency’s decision, which led to its invalidation. The district court also considered that since the Energy Authority’s decision on the power plant permit was based on the assumption that the Environment Agency’s authorization existed, its invalidation constituted a significant substantive flaw in the power plant permit, which also led to its invalidation.
The State believed that the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case was suitable to have precedential value regarding the interpretation of the Water Management Act, in particular two specific provisions thereof, as these provisions had not previously been tested in court. Secondly, the State believed that the outcome of the case could have general significance regarding the application of legal rules when it comes to choosing between different legal interpretation options. Thirdly, the State referred to the fact that the outcome of the case had significant social significance, as the power plant plans in question were necessary to ensure electricity security. Delays in the implementation would result in damage and uncertainty for society.
The state then based its argument on the fact that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, stating that leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court shall not be granted if the parties consider it necessary to call witnesses in the case, there is still a dispute about the evidentiary value of oral testimony in the district court, or there is still a dispute about facts that require specialist expertise in court to resolve, did not stand in the way of leave to appeal.
Delays may delay energy transition
The decision states that Landsvirkjun relied on the fact that the outcome of the case before the Supreme Court had precedential value, general significance for the application of legal rules and significant significance in other respects.
First, it was urgent to obtain the final decision of the Supreme Court in the case as soon as possible, but delays in the construction of the Hvammsvirkjun power plant could delay energy transition in this country. Secondly, Landsvirkjun clearly believed that the Supreme Court’s judgment on the merits of the case would set a precedent for the application of the Water Management Act.
Thirdly, Landsvirkjun referred to the fact that there were significant societal interests at stake in the case. Finally, Landsvirkjun considered that there was no need to call witnesses in the case and that there was no dispute about the evidentiary value of oral testimony given before the district court.
The Supreme Court’s conclusion states that, based on the evidence in the case, it must be considered that a judgment in it could have general significance for the application of legal rules, in addition to the fact that its outcome could have significant societal significance in other respects. Furthermore, the case does not present the circumstances that could prevent permission to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from being granted. The appeals of the State and Landsvirkjun were therefore granted.
The case backlog has now reached its second year
It is clear that by appealing the case directly to the Supreme Court, the state and Landsvirkjun have significantly accelerated the outcome of the Hvammsvirkjun case. Benedikt Bogason, President of the Supreme Court, said in an interview with Vísir on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the establishment of the Supreme Court, that an appeal directly to the Supreme Court would be a useful tool for dealing with the long case backlog in the Supreme Court.
The time taken for proceedings in the Supreme Court is far too long; a year and a half could pass from the time a civil case is appealed to the Supreme Court until a verdict is reached.
Source: Visir.is
