Doručování odvolateli v územním řízení s velkým počtem účastníků

Service on the appellant in planning proceedings with a large number of parties

On 7 December 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court issued a judgment, no. 6 As 285/2021-55 ('the Judgment'), in which it expressed its opinion on the method of service in zoning proceedings with a large number of parties on an intervener in such proceedings - i.e. a person whose ownership or other right in rem to neighbouring buildings or neighbouring land or buildings on them may be directly affected by the zoning decision[1], who was served in the first instance, after having lodged an appeal, by public notice pursuant to Section 144(6) of Act No. 500/2004 Coll, the Code of Administrative Procedure.

In the present case, the complainant challenged by way of a cassation complaint the order of the Municipal Court in Prague of 26 June 2021, in which the Municipal Court concluded that the complainant's action against the decision on the location of the building issued in a procedure with a large number of parties served by public notice on 18 June 2020 ('the Decision') was untimely, as it was not filed until 26 March 2021, and dismissed it. The complainant took the date of service of the order of the Municipal Court to be 3 February 2021, when, on consulting the file, he became acquainted with the contested Decision. The complainant was one of the two appellants in the zoning proceedings in question, had been active in the proceedings from the outset, and therefore considered that service by public notice was unduly harsh and denied the right to judicial protection.

In its judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that, although service by public notice could be made in appeal planning proceedings with a large number of parties, it was not a mandatory method of service for this type of proceedings. Thus, the administrative authority is entitled to serve (some of) the parties individually in a large number of appeal proceedings in a particular case, and a different method of service within one group of parties (provided that it is justified by objective criteria) does not infringe the principle of equality of parties, economy or legitimate expectations. At the same time, the Supreme Administrative Court held in its Judgment that, by lodging the appeal, the applicant had distinguished himself from the other interveners and had become, in a certain (figurative) sense, an applicant who must always be served individually in proceedings with a large number of parties. In the light of the above, the Decision was not validly and effectively notified to the complainant by public notice, with the result that the time-limit for bringing an action against the Decision only started to run after the complainant had become acquainted with the Decision by consulting the file, and his action against the Decision was therefore properly brought before the expiry of the time-limit for appeal.

Although the Judgement concerned the legal regulation in the 'old' Building Act[2], its conclusions also apply to the legal regulation of Act No. 283/2021 Coll., the Building Act. Moreover, the latter, in the provisions of Section 188(4), expressly states the obligation to serve the applicant individually, even in proceedings with a large number of parties.

We are closely monitoring further developments in this area. If you are interested in more detailed information, please also contact the authors of this article or other members of EY Law or the EY team with whom you are working, as appropriate.

Authors:

David Hlaváček

Magdalena Hamáčková

[1] Section 85(2)(b) of Act No. 183/2006 Coll., on spatial planning and building regulations (Building Act).

[2] In Act No. 183/2006 Coll., on spatial planning and building regulations (Building Act).