Environmental Justice and Public Resource Governance: Prevention, Proportionality and Effective Judicial Protection in the Case Law of Ukraine's Supreme Court: An EU Environmental Law Perspective (An Author's Analytical Review of the Case Law of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court, 2023–2026)

The recent environmental case law of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court is concerned with the quality of public decision-making as well as the final administrative act. The empirical basis comprises 25 judgments delivered between December 2023 and August 2026 and selected according to an author-defined criterion. Environmental impact assessment must precede proposed activities, or material changes to existing activities, that are likely to have significant effects on the environment; an inspection must rest on evidence; suspension must be justified by a current and substantiated risk; and access to court must remain practical where collective environmental interests or public natural resources are at stake. This review relates those holdings to the European framework discussed during the EJTN “EU Environmental Law” programme held in Rome on 21–22 September 2026. The Habitats Directive [EU-1] and the Birds Directive [EU-2], the EIA Directive [EU-3], the Aarhus Convention [EU-4], the Nature Restoration Regulation [EU-7], Article 191 TFEU [EU-11] and selected judgments of the Court of Justice identify the legal significance of adequate assessment, timely participation and effective judicial protection. The comparison is contextual. EU directives, Article 267 TFEU [EU-5] and the Charter [EU-10] do not apply to Ukrainian courts in the same manner as to courts of Member States; the Aarhus Convention [EU-4] is binding on Ukraine, while EU law supplies a relevant standard for approximation and reasoned comparison. The review argues that prevention and proportionality operate together: environmental risk justifies timely intervention, while the remedy must remain tied to the facts existing at the time of judgment, and public availability of an administrative act does not by itself establish knowledge of a defect contained in the underlying administrative file.