Published on April 10, 2008
Dispute about the existence of a publicly accessible purpose-built road in a municipality
Dispute about the existence of a publicly accessible purpose-built road in a municipality
The Defender opened an inquiry on his own initiative in the matter of a dispute about the existence of a purpose-built road. He ascertained during the inquiry that the highway administrative authority entirely lacks qualified methodological assistance from the regional authority or, as the case may be, the Ministry of Transport. He therefore produced a report on the inquiry with a detailed description of how a road arises, how a publicly accessible purpose-built road differs from a local road and how the highway administrative authority should proceed in cases where access to a road is restricted. The manner in which the highway administrative authority determines the existence or the lack of a road was one of the basic issues dealt with. The Defender stated that in his opinion there may be a procedure pursuant to Section 142 of the Code of Administrative Procedure where the administrative authority issues a declaratory decision.
The regional authority and the Ministry of Transport did not agree with the Defender; they promote the certificate of existence of a road pursuant to Part IV of the Code of Administrative Procedure. The Defender therefore now requires that the Ministry of Transport performs its own analysis of the possibilities available to the highway administration authorities, which should determine as to what procedure the authorities should take in settling disputes about the existence and extent of use of a purpose-built road. The Defender also insists that the Ministry issues a methodology for settling disputes about the existence of a road on a specific plot of land that will include a description of the practical procedure demonstrated on model examples.
Dispute about the existence of a publicly accessible purpose-built road in a municipality
The Defender opened an inquiry on his own initiative in the matter of a dispute about the existence of a purpose-built road. He ascertained during the inquiry that the highway administrative authority entirely lacks qualified methodological assistance from the regional authority or, as the case may be, the Ministry of Transport. He therefore produced a report on the inquiry with a detailed description of how a road arises, how a publicly accessible purpose-built road differs from a local road and how the highway administrative authority should proceed in cases where access to a road is restricted. The manner in which the highway administrative authority determines the existence or the lack of a road was one of the basic issues dealt with. The Defender stated that in his opinion there may be a procedure pursuant to Section 142 of the Code of Administrative Procedure where the administrative authority issues a declaratory decision.
The regional authority and the Ministry of Transport did not agree with the Defender; they promote the certificate of existence of a road pursuant to Part IV of the Code of Administrative Procedure. The Defender therefore now requires that the Ministry of Transport performs its own analysis of the possibilities available to the highway administration authorities, which should determine as to what procedure the authorities should take in settling disputes about the existence and extent of use of a purpose-built road. The Defender also insists that the Ministry issues a methodology for settling disputes about the existence of a road on a specific plot of land that will include a description of the practical procedure demonstrated on model examples.