Building work to extend the metro line A from Dejvice to Motol

The Defender headed an investigation in a case filed by a civil association in which the association complained about the procedure taken by the construction department of the Office of the City District of Prague 6 (hereafter simply “OCD Prague 6”) and the Municipal Council of the Capital City of Prague (hereafter simply “Municipal Council”) in relation to the issuance of a planning ruling on the location of building work which included the extension of the metro A line from Dejvická via Petřiny to Motol.

To summarise, the association’s objections to the aforementioned planning ruling were that there were doubts surrounding the issue of the ruling, as in the association’s opinion the documentation for the planning ruling and the ruling itself do not comply with the approved change No. Z1344/00 and the applicable binding part of the Territorial Plan of the Capital City of Prague for the Červený vrch locality. Although the association repeatedly informed the above administrative bodies of this discrepancy, as well as the risks involved in the building work to extend the metro line A below apartment buildings, no remedial measures were promised. The association also referred to the conclusions of the appraisal carried out by the Klokner Institute of ČVÚT in Prague on 19.11.2009, according to which the metro construction work could cause a building to subside or tilt as a result of the dynamic effects of the tunnel boring work and blasting work.

After assessing the case the Defender decided to begin an investigation into the matter, as part of which he requested a statement from the Mayor of OCD Prague 6 and the director of the Municipal Council. In his Investigation Report the Defender stated that the Municipal Council had failed to provide convincing proof that the building work was in compliance with the territorial plan, when the divergent routing of the work to extend the metro A line, which differed from the approved plans as shown in the graphical part of the territorial plan, was justified by the nature of the building work (i.e. that it would have to run underground) and the general nature of the territorial plan, the basic design of which is not affected by these changes. The Defender was also critical of the fact that the Municipal Council’s statement on the plea filed by the association on 23.12.2009 for a review of the planning ruling, containing objections to the infringement of the rights of the owners of the homes (flats) above the metro construction, was too general and inadequate and, from the viewpoint of the criteria for the judicial review, could not be verified; this statement declared that the rights of the owners of the homes (flats) above the metro construction could not be affected as this was an underground construction which would not infringe upon the rights and lawfully protected interests of home-owners.

The Defender also referred to the fact that the administrative offices had been at fault when they, together with the builder (i.e. Dopravní podnik hlavního města Prahy, a.s. (Transport Authority of the Capital City of Prague)) and the designer of the planning documentation did not inform citizens in advance that due to new findings concerning the geological conditions in the territory in question the route of the metro A line extension would have to diverge from the route shown in the territorial plan and that it would have to run under the Červený vrch estate.

Considering the fact that no proper or extraordinary appeal may currently be filed to have the aforementioned planning ruling reviewed, the Defender decided to act on his own special authority in accordance with § 22 Paragraph 3 of Law No. 349/1999 Coll., the Public Defender of Rights Act, and to propose that the Supreme Attorney file a lawsuit to protect the public interest against the decision of OCD Prague 6 regarding the position of the building work in question. Considering the fact that two building permits had already been issued by the Municipal Council as the special building authority, he also called for a lawsuit to be filed to protect the public interest in the matter of these building permits.