Speeding up line construction at the expense of justice? Courts assess the impact of the amendment of the "linear law" on the rights of the public
Author of the article: JUDr. Tereza Snopková, Ph.D., ARROWS (office@arws.cz, +420 245 007 740)
If you are concerned with the permitting of infrastructure projects, you will probably also be affected by the new developments in the "line law"; among them, the limits for filing a so-called blanket appeal. This topic is discussed in more detail below.
Last year's amendment to the so-called "Line Act" (Act No. 465/2023 Coll.), newly designated as the Act on Accelerating the Construction of Strategically Important Infrastructure, brought changes that significantly affected the approval processes for strategic infrastructure projects as of 1 January 2024. The aim of the amendment was clear: to speed up the construction of major developments such as motorways, mining or energy projects or CO2 storage infrastructure. In practice, however, the amendment also brought significant changes to the existing practice of filing a blanket appeal.
What is a blanket appeal?
A blanket appeal allows the parties to lodge a complaint in its basic form and to supplement the grounds of appeal at a later stage.
This option is now abolished for strategically important plans. The Supreme Administrative Court ("SAC"), in its order of 26 June 2024, no. 8 As 96/2024 - 96, ruled that the parties must file a complete appeal within 14 days of receipt of the decision. This shortening of the time limits, which was confirmed by the Constitutional Court, nevertheless places considerable demands on the expertise and time readiness of the parties concerned (even though the SAC allows for the extension of an impeccably filed basic complaint).
Reflection on judicial practice
An example of the impact of this amendment is the case of an environmental association which unsuccessfully opposed the construction of the D1 motorway section between Říkovice and Přerov. After failing before the Regional Court in Ostrava, the association lodged (after 1 January 2024) a blanket cassation complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. The SAC first invited the association to supplement its grounds, but subsequently rejected the complaint on the basis of Section 2(8) of the Act on Accelerating the Construction of Strategically Important Infrastructure, according to which the removal of defects in the submission is not taken into account.
The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) concluded that the transitional provisions could not be applied in the case in question, i.e. the new provisions of Section 2(8) of Act No 416/2009, which preclude the completion of the grounds of a cassation complaint after the time limit, were fully applicable to the complaint lodged, even though the SAC had initially given instructions on the possibility of completing a blanket cassation complaint.
The association subsequently turned to the Constitutional Court and argued that the applied provision of the Act on accelerating the construction of strategically important infrastructure restricted the right to a fair trial and requested its annulment.
However, in October 2024, the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaint, which was accompanied by a motion to repeal Section 2(8) of Act No. 416/2009 Coll., as manifestly unfounded (Constitutional Court Resolution of 16 October 2024, Case No. IV ÚS 2416/24), as it found no violation of the complainant's fundamental rights. The rejection of the constitutional complaint on the grounds of its manifest lack of merit also removed the basic condition for the consideration of the motion to repeal the law, or its individual provisions.
What are the broader consequences?
The current wording of the law on accelerating the construction of strategically important infrastructure not only brings faster permitting processes, but also more pressure on the affected public, including associations. Shortened time limits and limited appeals may lead to inadequate protection of the public's rights (there is also mandatory representation by a lawyer in the appeal).
In summary, the limitation of blanket appeals may be a contribution to more efficient building permitting (it does not, however, address the length of the permitting process from the submission of the investor's application and the possible repeated supplementation of the application), but it is already on the verge of preserving the right to fair access to the courts (even though the courts have judged the new legal regulation to be legitimate).