Exceeded noise limits on the D1 motorway

The deputy of the Defender initiated an inquiry in the matter concentrating on the procedure of the Regional Health Authority and found the latter passive (the Health Authority should have actively entered into negotiations with the operator as it had had trustworthy information already in 2008 that the deadline for completion of the noise barriers would not be met). If it intended to act favourably towards the operator, it should have at least commenced informal communication with it to seek a solution to the situation. Otherwise there was the threat that the Health Authority would be forced to conduct sanction proceedings against the Road and Motorway Directorate. The Health Authority essentially agreed with these critical conclusions, but it stated that it would not deal with the matter until expiry of validity of the permission. The deputy contended on the aforementioned position that in case that the operator is unable to explain in a trustworthy manner why it has not commenced building noise barriers to date, the law allows the Health Authority to commence proceedings on removal of the exemption before expiry of the validity of the relevant decision. The head of the Regional Health Authority promised to ensure remedy on the basis of the aforementioned conclusions and initiated proceedings on removal of the relevant exemption. Sanction proceedings due to failure to comply with noise limits should be initiated subsequently.

Exceeded noise limits on the D1 motorway

A complainant contested the procedure of the Regional Health Authority of the South Moravian Region, which had permitted the Road and Motorway Directorate to operate a source of noise exceeding safe limits (a part of the D1 motorway). The permission had been issued until June 30, 2009, one of the conditions being completion of noise barriers on both sides of the motorway by the end of 2008. Noise measurement was to take place after the completion of the barriers and the results were to be submitted by the end of validity of the permission at the latest. However, the construction of the barriers did not even commence by the above-specified deadline.

The deputy of the Defender initiated an inquiry in the matter concentrating on the procedure of the Regional Health Authority and found the latter passive (the Health Authority should have actively entered into negotiations with the operator as it had had trustworthy information already in 2008 that the deadline for completion of the noise barriers would not be met). If it intended to act favourably towards the operator, it should have at least commenced informal communication with it to seek a solution to the situation. Otherwise there was the threat that the Health Authority would be forced to conduct sanction proceedings against the Road and Motorway Directorate. The Health Authority essentially agreed with these critical conclusions, but it stated that it would not deal with the matter until expiry of validity of the permission. The deputy contended on the aforementioned position that in case that the operator is unable to explain in a trustworthy manner why it has not commenced building noise barriers to date, the law allows the Health Authority to commence proceedings on removal of the exemption before expiry of the validity of the relevant decision. The head of the Regional Health Authority promised to ensure remedy on the basis of the aforementioned conclusions and initiated proceedings on removal of the relevant exemption. Sanction proceedings due to failure to comply with noise limits should be initiated subsequently.