The conflict about the Khimki Forest is lasting for years; the problem becomes rather political than environmental. It now touches not only green area protection or assistance to local residents, but also fighting – corruption, authorities, and windmills also. Informational vacuum is fuelling the conflict still more.

Hardly ever one of the conflict parties is right definitely and wholly. The highway is needed, so is environmental balance: nobody doubts that the highway should be constructed, the questions is – where. Though the conflict is lasting since 2007, local residents have got no documental information about borders of the construction area, approved by a statement of the Khimki town district head also in 2007. It is data closeness that makes quite logically to be afraid that the final right-of-way decision will be made when already half of the forest is cut to have enough places for all fuel stations.

In 2011, the Khimki Forest defenders submitted a request to the Khimki town administration, asking to provide a copy of the statement approving the construction area borders. The request was rejected; instead, officials offered the activists to get familiar with some neutral official orders they had not requested.

The activists filed a claim to the Khimki town court bit it also decided in favor of the administration. By the way, both the defendants and the judge referred to the defendant’s official website where the statement in question is published, but without attachments containing data on the construction area borders.

Evgeny Smirnov, IIFD lawyer representing the activists in the case, comments: “The first-instance court expressed no willing to study the case details; instead, it only formally asked about the procedure for answering citizens’ requests. The hearing procedure was very short: all the plaintiffs’ demands were rejected”.

The plaintiffs filed a cassation appeal to the Moscow Oblast Court, not hoping much for the cassation results. However, on November 24, 2011, the Moscow Oblast Court cancelled the first-instance court decision and satisfied all the plaintiffs’ claims. Evgeny Smirnov says that the court studied the case materials in details and asked many questions on the case essence within hearings; such an approach to reviewing cassation appeals takes place quite seldom, and deserves high praise.

The data provided will allow to make conclusions about the long-lasting construction procedure, though the problem of course cannot be solved at once.

Materials of the case (in Russian) can be found in the IIFD litigation register.

The forest defenders also place news on the conflict at their website.
On November 3, 2011, the Russian Federal Government and officials from Moscow Oblast authorities promised (by issuing a statement) to balance the construction consequences for the forest at the maximal possible degree; in particular, funding is assigned for environmental damage compensation and restoring green areas.