Quicker construction of motorways and other key infrastructure, at last?
An amendment to the Act on Accelerating the Construction of Transport, Water, Energy and Electronic Communication Infrastructure (No. 169/2018 Coll.) entered into effect on 31 August 2018. It primarily deals with the backbone motorway network, main railway corridors and high-speed railway lines, the Prague airport, and other facilities included in an appendix to the amendment.
When transport infrastructure is being built, a major problem are delays caused by the re-examination of decisions associated with the issue of building permits. The amendment therefore introduces a number of legal concepts aimed to substantially shorten and improve the effectiveness of permit proceedings relating to important structures, the important one of which is a fiction of consent as regards the issue of various binding opinions within permit proceedings. If the building authority does not issue a binding ruling within 60 days, it is conclusively presumed that the permit is not conditional upon this opinion. However, this rule will not apply to binding opinions involving environmental impact assessments.
Other major changes are the possibility to issue interim decisions within expropriation proceedings and the real property owner’s duty to suffer the performance of preparatory works (including measurement and exploratory works, access to plots of land) even before the actual commencement of the appropriate permit proceedings. Interim decisions may be issued by the relevant authorities on the expropriator’s request when the authority ascertains that conditions for the expropriation of a relevant property item have been met, excepting the determination of compensation for such expropriation. Depending on the subject matter of proceedings, the authority may use an interim decision to cancel easements and superficiary rights to construct, limit the right of ownership or even expropriate ownership and transfer it to the expropriator. The person concerned cannot appeal against such a decision; however, it may file an administrative action and apply for a resolution to suspend the enforcement of the decision.
In contrast with the above, one of the major changes brought forward by the amendment favours the owners of real estate, as it clarifies the procedures preceding expropriation proceedings. According to this clarification, the expropriator must attempt to conclude a contract to acquire the right to real property at issue within 90 days of the date a draft contract is delivered to the owner and if the expropriator does not succeed in concluding such a contract, only then the expropriation may commence. The amendment further clarifies that expropriation may only commence after a draft contract to acquire the right to a plot of land or a structure is delivered to the expropriated party but not concluded within 90 days despite the expropriator’s evident attempts to reach an agreement with the owner. In this respect, the amendment adds one rule, according to which it is possible to proceed with the expropriation only if the expropriator attempted to negotiate an agreement with the expropriated party at least 30 days before filing an application for expropriation.
Only practice will show whether we will see less bureaucracy in the construction of key infrastructure while adequately preserving ownership rights.