IOI Ombudsman News 35/2015

The Public Defender of Rights (then Deputy Ombudsman) has criticised the Authority for its failure to observe the deadlines for issuing decisions and other acts within proceedings, and also for its failure to keep proper file records, to respond to the citizens’ applications and complaints, etc.

The as of yet unresolved case of unauthorised disposal of excavated soil, disguised as a landfill re-cultivation, in the municipalities of Chrášťany and Chýně u Prahy was especially serious.

The situation has not improved to date. The Deputy Ombudsman’s inquiry found continuing maladministration. The construction authority is inactive and there are long delays in proceedings concerning the developers’ applications. The developers lack any kind of legal certainty as to when and how their matters will be resolved. This is negatively reflected in the increased rate of unauthorised construction, since the developers are forced, by the authority’s inactivity as well as e.g. their contractual obligations, to initiate construction without having the necessary permit.

The problems concerning the Hostivice construction authority are not limited solely to complicated construction proceedings, but also concern simpler structures or construction modifications, which the Deputy Ombudsman illustrated on the case of a complainant who had unsuccessfully been trying to obtain permit for a superstructure, construction modifications of a barn and construction of a garden shed in the municipality of Středokluky since 2012. He also petitioned the superior Regional Authority of the Central Bohemia Region, without success. Only the intervention of the Deputy Ombudsman and local inquiry directly at the office of the construction authority led to a certain progress in the case.

The Deputy Ombudsman’s inquiry confirmed the long-term unlawful inactivity on the part of the Hostivice construction authority. He recommended the Hostivice municipal authority, and specifically the construction authority, to immediately complete and resolve all proceedings relating to relevant construction projects by issuing appropriate decisions. He also asked the Regional Authority to ensure strict supervision and adoption of measures that would prevent re-occurrence of the shortcomings (chaotic file records, the lack of proper file overviews, etc.). The authorities promised a remedy and some of the complainant’s matters were thus indeed resolved. However, the construction authority subsequently returned to its inactivity and again started ignoring applications and complaints, etc.

Pursuant to Section 20 (2) of the Public Defender of Rights Act, if an authority fails to adopt remedies, the Defender may inform the public, including the publication of the full names of persons acting on behalf of the erring authority. In the case of continued inactivity of the Hostivice construction authority, the Public Defender of Rights not only made the case public through the media, but she also hereby informing the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of this fact.