Legal issue: the constitutionality of the public law payment in the form of pay for the placement of waste, given that the legislation does not determine who bears the duty to pay it – either the person generating the waste or a specialized organization which carries out its removal and burial - thus delegating the issue to courts’ discretion?

Ratio decidendi: having pointed out to the importance of certainty of relevant rules, the Court found uncertainty in both legislation and court practice related to the issue. As a result, the Court came to conclusion that the contested regulation does not conform to the Constitution 1) to the extent that it – by virtue of judicial interpretation – allows for levying the aforementioned payment from specialized organizations for the disposal during the year 2009 of the waste accumulated as a result of activities of other organizations on the basis of civil law contracts, at the conclusion of which the parties proceeded from the assumption that making payments for the negative impact on the environment is the duty of the organization by which activities the waste had been generated; and 2) to the extent, in which it allows for the application of fivefold multiplying coefficient for an extra limit disposal of waste to a specialized organization in cases when the waste being disposed was created due to activities of other organizations.