protected area and nature park. The NGOs participated in this process, filing a complaint that officials were breaching EIA procedural rules and refusing to assess alternate routes around the areas. Most importantly, officials were conducting EIAs for individual segments of the highway only. The NGOs asserted that to understand the full envi-ronmental impact, an EIA for the entire proposed highway should be conducted.
The NGOs’ objections mirrored similar complaints made nationwide throughout the 1990s. However, offi-cials failed to act on their concerns. In the absence of a final decision, judicial review of the EIA proceeding was not possible.
Ministry’s exception to the Nature and Landscape Protection Act (1998-2000)
In 1995, the RMD asked the Ministry of Environment for an exception from the prohibition of building a motorway in the Ceske Stredohori Protected Area. This was very significant, as an exception to the Nature and Landscape Protection Act had never before been granted for a highway project. The administrative procedure that followed was crucial to the motorway project and ended with the Ministry denying the permit in 1998. However, the RMD appealed to the minister and the refusal was reversed. In 2000, the Ministry issued the exception from the law.
The NGOs had delivered testimony asserting that the public interest in protecting the natural resources in Ceske Stredohori was more important than the interests served by constructing a motorway through the area. In the issued exception, the Ministry rejected this opinion, stating that the motorway was in fact in the public interest, of greater importance than keeping the protected area free of highways.
Again, judicial review of the Ministry’s decision was not an option given that an overall decision on the highway had not yet been made.
Permission to traverse Krusne Hory Nature Park (1999-2000)
In this procedure, the District Planning Office had to consider the extent to which the planned motorway would interfere with the landscape character of the park and to consider feasible alternate routes. NGOs testified in this proceeding, making concrete suggestions and alternative solutions, which were set aside. The District Planning Office approved the planned route in 1999 and the Ministry affirmed this decision in 2000.
Construction placement permission (2000-present)
According to procedure, permission to begin a highway project is issued by the District Planning Office and is conferred one segment at a time. Typically, the granting of a construction permit — the final decision — is a routine decision influenced heavily by the preceding
stages. The NGOs testified against permit approvals for the two segments crossing the protected area and nature park.
The NGOs lost their case against permitting construc-tion on the segment through the nature park. The permit was issued in the spring of 2002, but the NGOs’ appeal against this decision was still pending in July 2002. The NGOs’ main argument was that an international EIA proce-dure was required pursuant to the ESPOO Convention because this section of motorway was next to the border with Germany. In addition, they claimed that there were potential conflicts between the plan and EU environmental law, especially the Habitats Directive (92/43EEC).
Final outcome
The NGOs planned to file a complaint before the Administrative Court when finally able to seek judicial review. Their hope is that the highway would be rerouted into a tunnel beneath the protected area. They also held out the prospect to go to EU authorities with a complaint about violation of EU law after the Czech Republic’s accession.
Related actions and campaigns
• Children of the Earth and other local NGOs conducted several non-violent demonstrations.
• Children of the Earth ordered several expert studies to explore alternate routes and improvements to the exist-ing plan. These were mostly ignored by officials.
• As construction of the motorway was to be partly financed by the EU, NGOs planned to notify responsi-ble EU authorities that the motorway would cross a protected area that was a candidate for a listing on the EECONNECT network.
Access to justice techniques
While NGOs fully used their participation rights, they also attempted to challenge interim decisions.
Case study analysis
Administrative review of interim decisions was unavail-able. In the Czech legal system, administrative review is only available after the rendering of a final construction location permit. This fails to take into account the fact that a myriad of important decisions happen along the way to the final decision. The instant case clearly illustrates this.
For example, the EIA conducted in the first stage and the Ministry’s exception in the second are junctures where the possibility of judicial review would at least prove helpful.
Each of these steps informs decisions made in the next.
Thus, if citizen participants and other interested parties
observe a flaw in reasoning or law by the government, the courts can be used to correct such a mistake. Restrained by appropriate standards of review, this potential involvement of judicial scrutiny at essential stages would increase overall efficiency and ensure that decisions are grounded in law and truly mirror the public interest.
Contacts
Participants in proceedings Miroslav Patrik
Children of the Earth Cejl 48/50
60200 Brno Czech Republic Tel: +42-05-452-103-93 E-mail: dz.brno@ecn.cz Author of case study Pavel Doucha
Environmental Law Service Kostnicka 1324
39001 Tabor Tel: +36-1-256-662 Fax: +36-1-254-866 E-mail: eps.tabor@ecn.cz
C Z E C H R E P U B L I C C A S E 2