Publication details
Co znamená vyloučení účasti ekologických spolků pro rozhodovací praxi správních soudů (reflexe nálezu sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 22/17)
| Title in English | Implications of the Restrictions of the Participatory Rights of Environmental NGOs Environmental NGOs for the Administrative Judiciary (commentary on the ruling of the Czech Constitutional Court in Case No. Pl. ÚS 22/17) |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2021 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Soudní rozhledy |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Web | Repozitář MU |
| Keywords | Environmental Protection; public participation; Constitutional Court; Aarhus Convention |
| Attached files | |
| Description | The exclusion of environmental NGOs from certain permitting procedures aroused great emotions in 2017. Moreover, the declared retaliation of civil society for the exercise of participatory rights was not examined by the Constitutional Court until more than 3 years after the submission of the proposal by a group of senators, and the reasoning provided by the Court (Case No. Pl. 22/17), are far from matching the quality of the long "waiting period". Therefore, this article attempts to highlight the controversial points of the ruling and at the same time summarise the issues that remain open, although they are crucial in terms of decision-making practice, also in relation to the new legal regulation introduced by the recodification of public construction law. The authors conclude that the manner in which the Constitutional Court has approached the review of the limitations on the participatory rights raises a number of questions. The Constitutional Court's reasoning appears simplistic and inconsistent, placing the interest in speed of decision-making above its quality. So the general courts are already engaging in polemics with it. The Constitutional Court was not in an easy position, because it was considering an unjustified, unsystematic, user-unfriendly (for both the non-participants and the investors) and burdensome change for the courts. The legislature is de facto asking the courts to take over the role of administrative bodies. Such increased demands on the expertise of judicial review may lead to more frequent use of expert reports and be one of the incentives for the specialisation of judges or even courts. |