Regulating in Emergency Situation in Comparison with the Interests of Future Generations

Abstract

Emergency regulation is necessary if the conditions are existing. Of course, emergency regulation should not mean unlimited opportunities, but obviously it might and should meet the constitutional conditions which always have to be respected, must always be exceptional and justifiable, and all must fit into the context of the given emergency situation and should not have long-lasting consequences, as the original situation should be re-established after the end of the emergency period. It is even more important to appreciate all these conditions in connection with legal regulation affecting the environment, or in a wider framework, future generations’ interests, where the need to be properly justified should have an even bigger scrutiny, and there can be no question of long-term consequences, which might only be restored with difficulties or even might not be restored, as all this might lead to contradictory effects. We shall see examples where the necessary balance could not be completed, putting a burden on the interests of future generations, while meaning no real improvement for the current ones. Using the necessity-proportionality test is particularly important in these cases. It is of utmost importance that those principles, such as non retrogression or the precautionary principle, which both stem from the Fundamental Law are employed, and we should not set aside the long-term thinking either.