1) An interim relief in the D8 highway law-suits
An automatic suspensive effect of bringing an action was granted by the decision of the Municipal Court in Prague concerning the legal actions filed against the building permission for construction of a tunnel as a part of the D8 highway in the mountain range of České Stredohori. The Court referred to international obligations and rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court. Above all it stated that „the condition of an irretrievable harm caused by the execution or a different legal effect of the contested decision must be considered fulfilled regarding a potential irreversible impact on the landscape of a Protected Landscape Area, regardless whether the plaintiff - a civil association is entitled to rights concerning the environment.„ At the same time the court stated that „public interest in protecting the environment from irreversible impacts outweighs public interest in the construction of a new highway.”
However this decision was consequently reversed by the Ministry of Transport, who submitted to the court an expert evidence stating that suspensions of construction of the tunnel would presumably „constitute significant safety risks from the technical point of view„. The court drew a conclusion that in this particular matter it is dealing with „an exceptional case”, where, even when taking into account the obligations from the Aarhus Convention and the EIA Directive, reasonable grounds for the diverting from the previous case law of the Supreme Administrative Court are provided, and the Court consequently annulled its former decision on the suspensive effect of bringing an action. (elaborated on the basis of the judgement of the Municipal Court in Prague 5 Ca 120/2008 - 43)
2) Successful law-suit concerning noise pollution
Prague residents living close to the main motorway in 5. května street in Prague 4 were successful in their trial against the city hall. The law-suit was filed because the noise from the motorway, which has been causing discomfort to residents for many years, substantially exceeds maximum permitted levels. On 30. 1. 2008 the Municipal Court in Prague took a breakthrough decision, when it allowed for the complaints of almost three thousand affected people.
The court ordered that the capital must in the scope of one year bring down the noise level in the affected apartements to 45 decibels during the day and 35 decibels between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., complying with sanitary standards. The court overruled the decision of a district court from April last year, which had rejected the complaints. Therefore it is likely that the current decision might have a significant influence on other similar cases.
The plaintiffs are just in their reasons. According to judges the proposals can be satisfied earlier than in 2012, as was suggested by the defendant’s lawyer, when the ring-road around the city is supposed to be finished. If the capital does not carry out any significant changes in one year it will be fined. The city hall is probably going to appeal against the decision.
The first legal action against the city hall as an owner of a traffic road was brought by almost one thousand residents of adjoining apartements. The plaintiffs rely on four independent expert reports and measurements of noise, according to which the noise from passing cars reaches almost 70 decibels during the day and 60 decibels at night. The maximum permitted level is 60 decibels during the day and 50 decibels at night.
3) Noise-exemptions
Citizens are entirely excluded from the decision-making process on issuing permissions for operation of noise pollution sources which exceed maximum noise levels. According to § 94/4 of the Public Health Protection Act, only applicant, i. e. the operator, is allowed as a party to the proceedings. Up to January 2008 there was issued 131 of such permissions in the Czech Republic, however a number of them applied to more than one source of noise pollution (in one case it applied to two hundred separate sources) – mostly traffic roads.
Under the current legislation even the owners of properties in the immediate vicinity of a noise source whose rights are undoubtedly concerned are not allowed to take part in the proceedings. Members of the public concerned thus have no legal means to influence neither the length of validity of the permission, nor the time schedule of diminishing the noise nor the choice of technical solutions. Further information can be found in a new study on noise-exemptions published by EPS.
4) Public body do not want to provide information
A genuine example of the unwillingness to provide information is the conduct of the The Road and Motorway Directorate of the Czech Republic (Directorate). In 2003 Children of the Earth requested to be allowed to look into the documents concerning the building permission for the D8 highway, in particular its part going through the moutain range of Krušné hory. The Directorate rejected to diclose the information stating that it could not be considered as a public authority and that is why it was not obliged to give the information.
Consequently, Children of the Earth filed a suit and finally after 4 years of legal proceedings won the case. The Prague‘s City Court held that the Directorate was indeed a public authority and had a duty to disclose the relevant information.
While awaiting the decision, the paricular part of the motorway had been already built (2006) and Children of the Earth had been allowed not only to look at all of the documents concerning the building permission but also copy them during the building procedure.
Since this decision the Directorate has been willing to disclose documents concerning building permissions. However it allows to make copies only on condition of an express approval with reference to a wrongly interpreted provision of the new Building Act.
5) Scope of environmental information
There have been discussions on what is and what is not an environmental information. Environmental Law Service (EPS) requested a study which proved that the blood of inhabitants residing in the vicinity of the company Spolana, a. s. contained an increased amount of dioxins. However the National Health Officer of the Czech Republic refused to disclose the study. The health officer at first tried to withhold the existence of such a study and later illegally rejected to provide it. The reason given for rejecting the information was that „a human being is not considered to be a part of the environment". EPS appealed and the Minister of Health Affairs annulled the decision of the National Health Officer (EPS press releas, 13. 4. 2004)