The Constitutional Court found No 495 / 2025 Coll.
Findings of the Constitutional Court sp. zn.
Valid
Text versions:
02.12.2025
495
FIND
The Constitutional Court
of 22 October 2025
sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 17 / 25 concerning the proposal for the repeal of Government Decree No. 55 / 2025 Coll., on the Protected Landscape Area
On behalf of the Republic
The Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 17 / 25 on 22 October 2025 in plenary composed of the President of the Court of Josef Boxy and the judges and judges of Lucie Dolanská Bányai, Josef Fiala, Milan Hulmák, Veronica Christian, Zdeňka Kühn, Jiří Píbán, Kateřina Ronovska, Dita Řepková, Martin Smolka, Jan Svatona, Pavel Šámal, Jan Winter and Daniela Zeman (Judge of the Rapporteur) on the proposal of the Group of 35 Members, represented by Mgr. Mark Hejduk, a lawyer, the seat of the Member States of the Czech Republic, Prague 2 - Vinohrad, on the abolition of Government No. 55 / 2025 Coll.
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
Definition of the case
1. By a proposal submitted pursuant to Article 87 (1) (b) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") on 24 April 2025, a group of 35 Members (hereinafter referred to as "the draftsman") seeks the annulment of Government Decree No. 55 / 2025 Coll., on the Protected Landscape Areas of Soutok (hereinafter referred to as "the Government Decree on CHKO Soutok" or "Government Decree").
2. The Government Decree on CHKO Sovereign was approved by the Government on 15 January 2025, became effective on 5 March 2025 and on 1 July 2025.
3. The appellant asks for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 39 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., in order to prevent the legal effects of the Government regulation as well as because of serious damage to the laws set out below.
Content of the contested government regulation
4. The contested Government Regulation (https: / / www.e-sbirka.cz / sb / 2025 / 55 / 2025-07-01? f = 55% 2F2025% 20Sb. & zalozka = text) refers to the protection of nature and landscape as the basic purpose of the declaration of the Protected Landscape Area of Soutok (§ 1). It also defines in detail the mission and subject matter of the protection of the protected landscape area (§ 2). It defines the area on which it is located, which is further subdivided into 4 zones of graduated nature conservation (§ 3, 4). It provides for protection conditions by defining the activities that can be carried out within the protected landscape area with the consent of the nature conservation authority (§ 5). It determines the date of entry into force (Section 6).
5. The Annex to the Government Regulation defines the boundaries of the Protected Landscape Area of Soutok ("CHKO Soutok ') in a plot map containing 519 map sheets.
Claim of the appellant
6. The appellant claims that the government's regulation is contrary to the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and to Act No. 114 / 1992 Coll., on Nature and Landscape Protection, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the ZOPK '). The Government exceeded both the constitutional authorisation in Article 78 of the Constitution and the legal authorisation under Section 25 (3) of the ZOPK.
7. The Government declared the CHKO Confluence disproportionately and contrary to Paragraph 1 of the ZOPK, according to which, inter alia, "the economic, social and cultural needs of the population and regional and local circumstances must be taken into account '. Comments from the public, the persons concerned and the municipalities were not properly settled.
8. The declaration of CHKO Contest was not necessary as its territory was and is protected as a European major site (EVL) pursuant to § 45a of the ZOPK, namely EVL Soutok-Podluží and EVL Niva Dyje, with sufficient protection. In the territory of both EVL, small-area specially protected areas are declared. At the same time, the area of the CHKO Confluence overlaps with protected bird areas.
9. Neither the Government nor the Ministry of the Environment ("Ministry") explained how specifically the declaration of the CHKO Soutok can contribute to environmental protection beyond the protection provided to date.
10. Even the declaration of the CHKO Confluence cannot provide sufficient protection for the most valuable habitats in its territory.
11. The more stringent way of protecting the EVL could be solved by simply extending the existing retail specially protected areas to the areas of the most valuable habitats of the assessed site (especially the lush forests), which require a stricter protection regime. These locations are included in particular in the I. zone protection CHKO Soutok.
12. The reason report does not indicate how the situation of the meadow forests in excess of the protection and conceptual summaries of the recommended measures for the existing EVL can be improved by declaring the CHKO Concrete. The same applies to hunting and fishing.
13. The improvement of the state of the territory cannot be achieved either by traffic regulation or by a ban on the entry of motor vehicles to the public. Existing regulation is sufficient.
14. By issuing the contested regulation, the Government has set aside the limits and limits set out in Paragraph 45c (4) of the HOP, which foresees the different ways of protecting the EVL. It also opposed Government Regulation No. 318 / 2013 Coll., on the establishment of a national list of European sites of importance, as amended. The national list of European sites to declare a protected landscape area for the two listed EVL does not count.
15. The protection of the EVL is to be provided preferably in the form of contractual protection in cooperation with the land owners concerned under Section 39 of the ZOPK. The fragmentation and diversity of ownership of the land in question is not extreme.
16. The Ministry could declare the location of the meadow forests on the territory of the most valuable biotopes and extend the small-area protected areas. Contracts under Paragraph 39 of the ZOPK may have been concluded only for certain parts of the territory for which the basic protection regime under Section 45c (2) of the ZOPK is not sufficient. The Ministry takes the wrong conclusion that only one single contract can be concluded for the whole of the EVL, to which all owners of the land concerned will accede. The Ministry did not even attempt to negotiate contractual protection with the owners of the land concerned in the first place.
17. Since the announcement of the CHKO Contest was not necessary, the Government committed an arbitrary act, thereby acting contrary to the principles of the rule of law, in breach of Article 1 (1) of the Constitution. It was just a political decision.
18. The Government Regulation interferes beyond what is necessary in the law pursuant to Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter ') of the owners of the land concerned for the protection of property. It does not have the potential to increase the existing territorial protection regime, so it cannot fulfil its main purpose. This is thus a pointless and disproportionate restriction on land and real estate owners. The existing restrictions on owners in the territory of EVL Soutok-Podluží and EVL Niva Dyje are sufficient to protect the territory against adverse effects.
19. There are regional or supra-regional business entities operating in the territory under consideration and the contested regulation disproportionately interferes with the right of business under Article 26 (1) of the Charter. Although this is a right under Article 41 of the Charter, the legislation should be reviewed by a stricter test of proportionality, "as the contested regulation is illegal and unconstitutional and the right to business is closely linked to the protection of property rights'. However, a government regulation could not stand even in the rationality test, as the process of its approval and consultation shows the signs of libel.
20. In the territory of CHKO Soutok, the company Vodovody and the sewerage Břeclav, a. s., hereinafter referred to as "VaK," whose business in the form of supply of drinking water to the population is operated in the public interest. The exemptions negotiated are not sufficient and construction activities are blocked.
21. There is also a restriction on the constitutional right to self-administration of municipalities. The municipalities will be limited without justification in their right to manage their property and also in their general right to exercise self-government (for example, when deciding on the future form or use of their territory in the context of spatial planning). The Government did not take into account the impact on the self-administration of specific municipalities and did not respect the need to limit the exercise of State authority to the extent necessary in cases of interference with the right of municipalities to self-administration.
22. The Ministry has acted as an administrative body in the preparation of the intention to declare the CHKO Soutok and in its hearing under Section 40 of the ZOPK, while all litigation concerning the decision of the Ministry or Minister of Decomposition is not yet closed. The Constitutional Court decides on the abstract control of the contested regulation, yet it is not possible to overlook the illegal and unconstitutional administrative procedure that preceded the initiation of the legislative process by the Government. The Ministry should not have submitted a proposal to the Government to declare the CHKO Soutok before all the actions had been formally decided.
Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
23. The Constitutional Court requested the Government's observations as a party to the proceedings under Paragraph 69 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act. The proposal was also sent to the Ombudsman pursuant to Section 69 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act, as amended.
24. The Ombudsman stated on 26 May 2025 that he would not exercise his procedural right under Paragraph 69 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended, and would not intervene.
Government observations
25. The Government states in its statement of 9 June 2025 that the area of the confluence of the rivers Moravia and Dyje represents one of the most biologically important territories of the Czech Republic. It is the largest preserved complex of meadow forests in Central Europe with exceptional species diversity, which is at the same time a territory with international importance for nature conservation. The effort to ensure adequate legal protection of this exceptional natural heritage dates back to 1992, when the proposal to extend the Protected Landscape Area of Pálava to the area of the Confluence was first presented.
26. It has already been repeatedly evaluated in the past that the existing Basic Protection Institute under Section 45c (2) of the ZOPK (EVL Soutok-Podluží and EVL Niva Dyje and the Bird Region of Soutok-Hardonická) does not provide sufficient protection for the territory.
27. The lack of legislative protection of the territory has led to the need to adopt non-standard measures to ensure the protection of forest ecosystems, namely through forest economic plans, but which have a different purpose and their use for nature conservation purposes is limited.
28. The process of declaring the CHKO Contest was standard and corresponded to § 40 of the ZOPK. The formal process was preceded by an extensive pre-negotiation phase. The Agency for the Protection of the Nature and Landscape of the Czech Republic (hereinafter "the AOPK ') addressed the authorities concerned, the operators, the public authorities and local citizens with a view to presenting the design of the project and enabling them to participate in the preparatory phase before the actual start of the legal process. A total of approximately 300 meetings took place in the region.
29. In August 2023, the Ministry sent the final intention to declare CHKO Soutok to the municipalities and the South Moravian Region, whose territory is concerned, was announced by a public decree to the owners of real estate, published on the Public Administration Portal and on the Ministry's website for comments to the general public. The intention contained all legally required elements, including a detailed justification for the necessity of the proposed protection and a comprehensive proportionality test.
30. The public responded to the notified intention by more than 1700 submissions. Of the total number of approximately 6,870 owners of real estate situated within the territory, 219 objected, with the vast majority of these objections identical in substance. Only 8 objections were unique. On the contrary, more than 15 000 citizens supported the emergence of the CHKO Contest.
31. The Ministry has decided on all duly submitted objections in individual administrative proceedings. 43 decompositions were submitted, decided by the Minister for the Environment. 30 administrative actions were brought against the Minister's decisions, 27 of which were identical in terms of content. All administrative actions are still unsuccessful.
32. In the inter-ministerial comment procedure, the proposal was made available to all entities registered in eKLEP's electronic library. The comments received were properly settled in accordance with the procedure laid down in the legislative rules of the Government (the Government has documented a table of comments).
33. Announcement of CHKO The confluence was a necessary, legal and proportionate measure to ensure effective protection of the exceptional natural values of the territory, the only realistically feasible solution to ensure its comprehensive protection. The assessment of the necessity of the declaration of the CHKO was carried out in three independent documents - the intention to declare the CHKO Soutok, the explanatory memorandum, the final report from the regulatory impact assessment (RIA), which the Government attached to the statement.
34. The Ministry has already carried out a comprehensive test of proportionality (p. 12-31 of the plan), which implies the necessity of this form of protection. The protection to date did not allow comprehensive care of the area that can be directed on the territory of the CHKO Soutok following the basic and closer protection conditions of the CHKO Concrete and set in an adaptive cycle differentiated, which is currently an ongoing climate change for the preservation of such a large-scale, unique, unique ecosystem. At the same time, the declaration of the CHKO Contest allows due account to be taken of the needs of the protection of bird species covered by the protection of the Soutok-Hardonicko Bird Region as a result of the planning of the care of the territory as a whole. The burden caused by the proposed method of protection of the territory is not significant for the operators concerned, let alone intolerable.
35. The purpose of declaring a protected landscape area (hereinafter referred to as "CHKO") is much wider than simply ensuring the protection of individual valuable habitats. The mission of the CHKO is, among other things, to preserve the natural functions of the landscape (water retention in the landscape, migration permeability, ecological stability), the preserved nature of the landscape, etc., which is not ensured by the instrument of small-scale specially protected areas. The overlap between CHKO and small-area specially protected areas is standard in all existing CHKO.
36. Paragraph 45c (4) of the ZOPK does not in any way limit the declaration of a new CHKO. The entry in the national list does not constitute a condition for the declaration of the CHKO in accordance with the procedure set out in Section 40 of the ZOPK.
37. The Institute of Contract Protection under Section 39 of the ZOPK refers to the retail specially protected territory, not the CHKO. In addition, there are approximately 6,870 unique landowners on the territory of both EVL, and one contract must be concluded with all the owners concerned. If no agreement is reached with one of the owners, the contract cannot be concluded. In the already declared retail specially protected territories, contractual protection pursuant to Paragraph 39 (1) of the ZOPK is no longer legally possible. Moreover, the conclusion of contracts is within the jurisdiction of the competent regional authority, so the Ministry could not have committed a possible infringement of the law.
38. It is completely undesirable for the territory of the CHKO to be fragmented into several protection schemes (small area specially protected areas, contractual protection), which would make systematic and comprehensive care of the territory as a whole impossible.
39. Property law is not absolute and unlimited. Moreover, an exemption may be granted from the basic protection conditions of the CHKO pursuant to Paragraph 43 of the ZOPK. A significant part of the restriction already results from the existence of EVL and the application of species protection according to the ZOPK. The actual impact of the declaration of the CHKO on the exercise of ownership is minimal. In addition, any intervention may be compensated under Paragraph 58 (2) of the ZOPK. Most of the territory of the CHKO (67%) is owned by the State, so the impact on private owners is limited. CHKO borders were designed to minimise interference in the built-up territory of municipalities (only 0.52% of the area) and respect legitimate development interests.
40. The right to business falls under Article 41 (1) of the Charter. The nature of the law is not affected. The announcement of the CHKO Contest will only result in a partial negligible increase in the administrative burden on operators operating on the territory of the CHKO Contest in connection with the obligation to request approval or authorisation of certain activities under the ZOPK. Account has been taken of the current use of the territory and the agricultural land was primarily included in the 3rd zone of the CHKO.
41. As regards the arguments concerning R & D, the Government submits that, on the basis of the R & D objection, the protection conditions have been modified so that the agreement of the nature protection authority is not required for operations related to the maintenance, operation and repair of water facilities used for the production of drinking water. In addition to the legal obligations, the Ministry has offered to VaK a Memorandum of Cooperation which would declare that the announcement of the CHKO would not affect the possibility of repairing and maintaining existing water infrastructure and would not make it difficult to permit new water infrastructure structures for drinking water supply. VaK refused to close the memorandum. Although an exemption must be requested for the construction activity in the area of the first zone of CHKO, the supply of drinking water is a public interest which fulfils the statutory conditions for granting the exemption.
42. As regards the right to self-administration, the Government states that the intention to declare CHKO Soutok was sent individually to all the municipalities concerned which might have objected to it in accordance with Paragraph 40 (3) of the ZOPK. Municipality may object both from the position of owner of immovable property and from the position of self-administration, the extent of the municipality's objections being not limited by law. A number of comments from the municipalities were accepted.
43. The right to self-administration is preserved in full by the declaration of the CHKO. The municipalities can continue to decide on their matters and the development of the territory, only to ensure that their activities maintain the natural values for which the CHKO was declared. This obligation is not exceptional - already today the municipalities must take into account the different limits resulting, for example, from the definition of bird areas or European sites. This restriction is proportionate. The CHKO Soutok border was designed with the maximum effort to minimise the impact on the municipalities and covers only the minimum area of the built-up area and does not include the continuously built areas of the municipalities.
44. The FOPC does not entail an obligation to postpone the legislative process until the final termination of the legal proceedings on objections. The Municipal Court in Prague has already rejected all applicants' applications to grant the suspensive effect of the action (21 applications in total) and has so far issued 21 negative judgments out of the 30 actions brought. Moreover, the courts do not have the power to intervene in the normative process, as is apparent from the established case law of the NSS (e.g. judgment No 6 As 162 / 2020- 162).
Replication of the appellant
45. The appellant, in its reply of 11 July 2025, states that the Government's observations ignore the existence, effectiveness and consistency of existing protection instruments. The forest management of both EVL works on the basis of an agreement between the Forests of the Czech Republic and the AOPK. This Agreement, together with approved forest management plans and summaries of recommended measures, constitutes a comprehensive and functional system of protection. The government perceives the individual instruments and institutions of protection provided by the EVL in isolation, thereby artificially creating a sense of their inadequacy.
46. There is nothing to prevent forest economic plans covering the rest of the forest territory within the territory concerned before it is yet.
47. The territory has been historically disturbed by the effects of the water-related adjustments made under the "past regime." The condition will not be restored to its original form. The current protection is thus sufficient.
48. If the government's argument about the absence of comprehensive protection of the territory concerned is true, there may no longer be protection of the EVL.
49. The appellant's aim is not to prevent the protection of the significant natural values that are present in the territory concerned, but to prevent the inefficient, unconceptually and only politically pushing through the declaration of CHKO Soutok.
50. Specific reasons and instruments have not been presented to ensure improvements to the existing territorial protection regime. It's just prediction. The extension of the ban on the entry of motor vehicles to land other than forest land and the ban on the organisation of mass events over 500 participants can be seen in the alternative.
51. The appellant disputes the Government's argument that only one contract must be concluded in case of contractual protection under Paragraph 39 of the ZOPK. In the rest it persists on the already established argument.
Abandonment of oral proceedings
52. Since the Constitutional Court did not expect further clarification of the case from the oral hearing, pursuant to Article 44 of the Constitutional Court Act, as amended, it has abandoned the oral hearing.
Competence for adoption of government regulations
53. The Constitutional Court, in accordance with Article 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., first examined whether the Government's regulation was adopted within the limits of the Constitution established competence and in a constitutional manner.
54. In accordance with Article 78 of the Constitution, the Government is entitled to issue a government order. The Decree was approved by the Government on 15.1.2025, the final text was published in the Collection of Laws and International Treaties on 5.3.2025 under No. 55 / 2025 Coll. with effect from 1.7.2025.
55. The legislative competence through government regulations is a separate power of order under Article 78 of the Constitution, the Government is entitled to issue regulations for the implementation of the law and within its limits and does not require any special authorisation from Parliament. The Government Regulation must not deviate from the legal limits, i.e. cannot be a praeter legem, and must remain within the limits of the law which are either expressly defined or resulting from the meaning and purpose of the law [e.g. the finding of sp. zn. Government regulation 1 must therefore be issued by a legitimate body, 2 must not interfere in matters reserved for the law, and 3 must be clear to the legislator's will to regulate above the legal standard, thus opening up the scope of the regulation. The Government's regulation can thus specify in more detail the issues covered by the basic features already laid down by the law itself [cf. e.g. the find sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 5 / 01 (N 149 / 24 SbNU 79; 410 / 2001 Coll.; Milk quotas)].
56. Protected landscape areas are defined by Section 25 of the ZOPK as follows:
"(1) Extensive areas with harmoniously shaped landscapes, characterised by relief, a significant share of natural ecosystems of forest and permanent grassland, with abundant forest representation, possibly preserved monuments of historical settlement, can be declared protected landscape areas.
(2) The economic exploitation of these territories shall be carried out according to tiered protection zones in such a way as to maintain and improve their natural state and maintain and create optimal ecological functions for these territories. Recreation is permitted if it does not damage the natural values of protected landscape areas.
(3) The Government of the Republic declares a regulation on protected areas, their mission and their close protection conditions. '
57. Paragraph 27 ("Breakdown of the territory of protected landscape areas") and Section 26 of the ZOPK ("Basic protection conditions of protected landscape areas") provide for the possibility of dividing CHKO into individual areas (zones) and, in particular, the level of protection (through different restrictions) for both the whole of the CHKO and for individual areas (zones).
58. It is clear from the documented documents (explanatory report, intention to declare the CHKO, including its p. 12-15) that the newly created CHKO can be considered as "an extensive area with harmonically shaped landscape, characteristically developed relief, an important proportion of natural ecosystems of forest and permanent grassland, with extensive forest representation, or with preserved monuments of historical settlement," as foreseen in Section 25 (1) of the ZOPK. Neither does the plaintiff.
59. The applicant does not specify that any of the specific conditions laid down by the Government's regulation (§ 5 - Closer Protection Conditions) would in itself deviate from the legal limits of the permissible regulation in the CHKO. As a result of its reservations, it considers the announcement of the new CHKO unnecessary.
60. In view of the criteria set out above for the constitutionality and legality of the Government's regulation, it can therefore be concluded that the regulation was first issued by an authorised body, 2. It does not interfere in matters reserved by the law, and 3. It is clear that the legislature's will to make more detailed provisions under the law.
61. As regards the objection that the regulation was issued "prematurely ', as judicial proceedings are still under way concerning the settlement of objections raised during the preparation of a government regulation, the Constitutional Court states that the government's competence to issue a government regulation is not in any way bound by law or by law to any previous litigation. In this respect, the Government did not exceed its competence in issuing the regulation.
62. The appellant cannot be attested to the fact that the process of approving and consulting the Government's regulation shows the characteristics of a forbearance and is thus contradictory to Article 1 (1) of the Constitution. The Government's argument that the Ministry has decided on all the objections made under Paragraph 40 of the ZOPK does not in any way refute the appellant. It is also clear from the documented settlement table that all comments made in the framework of the inter-ministerial comment procedure have also been settled.
63. Moreover, the fact that the objections or comments were not complied with in some cases does not constitute a defect in the normative process. As already pointed out by the Constitutional Court in the find sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 35 / 23 (111 / 2024 Coll.; Increasing noise limits), possible discrepancies with points of reference cannot in itself lead to a conclusion on the non-constitutional way of adopting a government regulation, since submitting a proposal to a government "without contradictions" is neither constitutional nor legal condition for adopting a government regulation.
64. The Constitutional Court thus concludes that the Government's regulation was adopted by the Constitution by an authorised authority, within the limits of the Constitution laid down by competence and in a constitutional manner (Articles 76 (1) and 78 of the Constitution).
Substantial review of government regulations
Alleged contradiction with Government Decree No. 318 / 2013 Coll. and Paragraph 45c (4) of the ZOPK
65. The objection of illegality or inconstitutionality to the alleged contradiction with the national list of European sites of importance is unfounded. This list is published in the form of a government regulation (No 318 / 2013 Coll.), the content of which is not a reference criterion for the review of another government regulation.
66. Nor can the alleged infringement of Paragraph 45c (4) of the ZOPK be attested. According to the following provision: "In order to ensure the favourable status of European habitats or habitats of European major species which are protected by European sites of European importance, the territory of the European major sites or parts thereof may be declared as specially protected areas or established under § 39 of the Convention. In order to maintain the favourable status of the subject-matter of protection of a European significant site more stringent than that provided for in paragraph 2, the Government shall, by regulation, provide for more stringent protection for this European important site or part of a category of specially protected territory in which the competent nature conservation authorities declare them not to be covered by the contract. This is the case for the Government in the event that this European-important site is not yet declared a specially protected area and its protection is not guaranteed even by contract pursuant to Paragraph 39. 'The declaration of the CHKO as one of the specially protected territories (cf. § 14 (2) of the ZOPK) is carried out under autonomous rules, with the aforementioned § 45c (4) of the ZOPK in no way limiting the government.
Alleged conflict with the right to the protection of property, the right to business and the right to self-government
67. The appellant's basic reservation, which is repeatedly mentioned in relation to both the right to the protection of property and the right to business and the right to self-government, lies in the alleged failure to comply with the requirement of proportionality in favour of environmental protection by declaring a new CHKO, in particular in the inability of the new legislation to contribute to a better protection of the natural sites concerned and in the failure to demonstrate the need for new legislation.
68. The Constitutional Court first notes, in general, that the State has its positive obligations in relation to the obligation to protect nature [finding of the Constitutional Court of 17 July 2019 sp. zn. The principles, objectives and motives enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution (determination to guard and develop together inherited natural and cultural, material and spiritual wealth) and in Article 7 of the Constitution (the State takes care of the gentle use of natural resources and the protection of natural wealth) create both restrictions and active obligations for the State (see Uhl, P. Article 7, Protection of natural wealth. In: Rychetský, P. et al. Constitution of the Czech Republic: Comment. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2015 or Sládeček, V. a kol. Constitution of the Czech Republic. Comment. 2. Prague: C. H. Beck, 2016, p. 91). Responsibility to future generations for the fate of all life on Earth is reminiscent of the preamble to the Charter, which further enshrined in Article 35 the right of an individual to a favourable environment.
69. The commitments quoted can only be fulfilled if environmental protection is comprehensive, thoughtful and planned. The law of the Czech Republic regulates a large system of instruments to protect nature and landscape. The CHKO Institute is therefore one of many of these instruments that exist side by side, often completely deliberately intertwining and influencing each other. The purpose of the declaration of a protected landscape area is to ensure the protection of specific territories characterised by an exceptional or characteristic landscape impact, thereby preserving their value for the future. In addition to this general purpose, the specific nature of each particular area results from a more specific mission defined at the time of the publication of the individual CHKO. It is clear that fulfilling those indeterminate legal concepts is the result of considerations which are based on objective data, but which are always made up of subjective intentions.
70. The Constitutional Court, within the framework of its competence in reviewing the constitutionality of a government decree declaring a particular CHKO, assesses whether the chosen solution does not unduly interfere with the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the parties concerned. It is not his job to find out if this is the most appropriate solution.
Legal objective of the contested legislation and the intensity of the review
71. In assessing the applicant's reservations, the Constitutional Court also addressed the issue of the form and intensity of the review.
72. As a general rule, the legitimate objective of the publication of the new GPA may be considered to be the protection of natural resources within the meaning of Article 7 of the Constitution or the environment within the meaning of Article 35 (1) of the Charter. In the sub-constitutional context, this objective is defined as the conservation of nature and landscape. From all documented documents as well as government statements, the area of the CHKO (the area of the confluence of the rivers Moravia and Dyje) is the largest preserved complex of meadow forests in Central Europe with exceptional species diversity, which is also an area of international importance for nature conservation. Nor does the appellant question that.
73. The activity of the contested regulation, or the declaration of the CHKO Soutok, starts to apply to all owners of real estate in the territory of the CHKO the regulatory regime concerning the use of their property. The restriction on the use of assets results from both Section 26 of the ZOPK and Section 5 of the contested government regulation. This regulation applies not only to private owners but also to municipalities located in the territory of the CHKO, since the use of municipal property (Article 101 (3) of the Constitution) is restricted by regulation. For example, it is forbidden to build new motorways, residential services and navigation channels on the territory of the entire CHKO (Section 26 (1) of the ZOPK). In the territory of the I zone of the CHKO (Section 26 (2) of the ZOPK) it is prohibited, for example, to permit or implement new buildings, to permit and change the use of the territory or to benefit from minerals and humor. On the territory of both the I and II zones of CHKO (Section 26 (3) of the ZOPK), for example, it is prohibited to farm on land outside the built-up territory of municipalities in a manner which requires intensive technology, in particular means and activities which may cause substantial changes in biodiversity, structure and function of ecosystems or irreversibly damage the soil surface, to use biocides, to change the water regime or to make terrain modifications of a significant scale.
74. According to Section 5 of the contested government regulation, certain methods of using property can only be taken with the consent of the nature authority. For example, in the territory of zone I of the CHKO it is the extraction of timber unless it has been foreseen in an approved forest economic plan or in a taken-over forest economic syllabus, in the territory of zone III of the CHKO it is the planting of plantations of indigenous timber on land not intended for the performance of forest functions, or the erosion of permanent grassland outside the built-up areas or the standing areas. It is possible, for example, to modify or modify the watercourse of water courses throughout the territory of the CHKO only with the consent of the nature conservation authority, unless the activities requiring authorisation or other action under the Water or Construction Act (Act No. 254 / 2001 Coll., on Water and amending certain laws (Water Act), as amended; Act No. 283 / 2021 Coll., Construction Act, as amended, de-mud ponds and other water tanks, store extracted sediment, mine minerals, perform geological work, mining or mining activities, renew or maintain elements of drainage, with the exception of authorised objects used for handling water levels according to the approved handling order.
75. All law and the contested regulation also affect the rights guaranteed in Article 26 of the Charter in the event that they restrict business or economic activity (farming, forestry, fish farming, etc.).
76. The Constitutional Court has therefore, on the basis of the applicant's reservations, assessed the conflict of interest in the protection of the environment and / or the natural heritage (Article 7 of the Constitution, Article 35 of the Charter), on the one hand, and the right of ownership (Article 11 of the Charter), on the other hand (Article 26 of the Charter) and on the right to territorial governance (Articles 8 and 100 of the Constitution, respectively).
77. Although the appellant challenges the legal regulation "en bloc 'and does not specify which provisions of the contested regulation unduly interfere with the rights of which the owner, entrepreneur or self-governing body (and in what way), it is sufficient under the abstract standard control regime that the intervention is foreseen by the contested legislation. The law in this procedure is subject to review by the Constitutional Court, without any interference with fundamental rights and freedoms necessarily having to be reflected in the legal sphere of the individual.
78. The Constitutional Court assessed the restriction of the right of ownership or the right to self-government by a proportionality test. The regulation, which by the new declaration of the CHKO to owners of real estate in the territory of the CHKO is not negligible and limits the exercise of property rights in the country in the aspect of the right to use the thing (e.g. limitation of construction activity or planting of timber) or to use its fruit (e.g. limitation of logging or minerals) in a substantial way [to apply the proportionality test in order to restrict ownership and the right to self-administration in order to protect the environment, also the finding sp. zn. At the same time, however, the degree of generality with which the Constitutional Court treats the review of the contested regulation is logically in line with the degree of generality with which the appellant challenged the regulation.
79. In the case of a business right falling under Article 41 (1) of the Charter, the rigour of the review depends on whether the contested legislation is affected by the very core of the law (then the legislation must pass the proportionality test) or not (then only the rational relationship between the chosen device and the objective pursued is sufficient). To the core of the law guaranteed by Article 26 (1) The Charter is affected if a particular group of individuals would be significantly hampered or prevented from having access to a particular profession or the possibility to pursue an activity [cf. Suspension of audit activities by initiation of criminal prosecution), paragraph 36. The Government's regulation certainly limits certain aspects of business activity, but does not make it impossible to perform it or access it. Therefore, the core of the law is not affected. In relation to limiting the right to business, it is sufficient that the means chosen to achieve the objective pursued (nature and landscape protection) is reasonable, albeit not necessarily the best, most appropriate, most effective or wisest.
80. However, if the contested legislation passes a more stringent test of proportionality, it is not necessary to test it separately with more moderate criteria. Since the appellant's argument is generally directed against the Government's regulation as a whole, without specifying the conflict of its specific provisions with certain rights objected, the Constitutional Court addressed the proportionality of the legislation as a whole.
81. The proportionality test shall include criteria of suitability, necessity and proportionality. The criterion of suitability examines whether a device used to restrict a constitutional principle (typically some constitutionally guaranteed law) is at all capable of achieving the legitimate objective pursued. The criterion of necessity is to assess whether the objective cannot be achieved in a comparable manner, at a lower degree of interference with or without a conflicting constitutional principle. Within the proportionality criterion, there is then a balance between the two in conflict with constitutional principles (rights).
82. Before carrying out the proportionality test itself, the Constitutional Court states, for the sake of completeness, that the appellant cannot be attested that, in the process of preparing and adopting government regulations, the proportionality of the legislation chosen in relation to the rights in question would not be sufficiently considered and justified.
83. The intention to declare the specially protected area of the CHKO Confluence of 2023 gives detailed arguments in favour of the proposed legislation, both in terms of its first suitability (pp. 12-15), the second need (pp. 16-19) and the third proportionality in the narrower sense (pp. 20-26). The explanatory memorandum to the Government Regulation also summarises the arguments for the necessity of the new legislation (p. 3-4). The final report from the Impact Assessment of Regulation (RIA, 2024) on both the Government Regulation and the subsequent Ministry Decree on the Definition of Nature Protection Zones CHKO Soutok (later published under No. 56 / 2025 Coll.) takes into account in detail the solutions options from the option of maintaining the current level of regulation to the variant of newly declared retail territories to the chosen variant of the new CHKO.
Assessment of the eligibility of the contested legislation to achieve a legitimate objective
84. In view of the criterion of suitability (eligibility), the Constitutional Court has concluded that there is no doubt that the declaration of the PTA in the territory concerned is capable of meeting the legitimate objective sought. This is, moreover, the fundamental purpose of the declaration of the CHKO and all restrictions associated with the declaration of the CHKO (see Section 5 of the Government Regulation cited above or Section 26 of the ZOPK) are clearly moving towards this objective. It is the nature and purpose of the regulation, or the substance and purpose of the declaration of any specially protected territory within the meaning of Section 14 (2) of the ZOPK. The contested legislation is thus a legitimate objective (protection of natural resources or the environment).
Assessment of the need for the contested rules
85. Similarly, the Constitutional Court concluded that the need for the contested legislation was sufficiently substantiated. Although the appellant mainly disputes the fulfilment of this criterion, offering alternative options to meet a legitimate objective, it cannot be attested to it.
86. While the appellant demonstrates that other instruments can also contribute to the conservation of nature and landscape in the territory (protection in the form of forest plans, the extension of these plans to other forests in the territory, contractual protection, the extension of existing retail specially protected areas to areas of the most valuable biotopes), it forgets that these forms of protection do not guarantee the fulfilment of the legitimate objective pursued to an equal or comparable extent, both in relation to the intensity of protection and its complexity. Some restrictions resulting from the declaration of the CHKO and to which the appellant does not offer an alternative (tightening the entry of motor vehicles, limiting the organisation of mass events), the appellant unjustifiably underlines the potential effect.
87. In order to make the appellant's argument that the protection of the territory can be guaranteed contractually, the Constitutional Court stresses that in order to ensure equally effective and effective protection of the territory it would be necessary to negotiate an appropriate level of protection of the site with all owners. If there are more than 6,000 land owners on the territory of both EVLs, the possibility of achieving this objective seems very unlikely. It is irrelevant whether one formal contract must be concluded with all owners or thousands of contracts. It is essential to ensure that the individual owners have the same will. However, it is more than obvious that reaching agreement on the content of the contracts with all owners is very difficult and unrealistic in such a large area and in that number of owners. This also applies to a possible change in protection in response to a change in the conditions in the territory. If no agreement had been reached, even with some owners, the purpose of protection would not have been fulfilled. For these reasons, contractual protection is an inappropriate instrument in such a vast territory to ensure effective, timely and comprehensive protection of natural wealth. It is primarily intended for retail protected areas. For the sake of completeness, it can be added that it is not possible to conclude a contract in accordance with Paragraph 39 (1) of the ZOPK for the retail specially protected areas already declared.
88. The use of forest economic plans is not a comparable effective tool of protection. In particular, it concerns only forests, with other types of land (meadows, wetlands, etc.) included in the territory. The appellant's argument in the reply that nothing prevents forest economic plans covering the rest of the forest territory within the territory concerned from taking into account in any way the fact that a part of the territory which is not forest-like cannot be protected in this way. In addition, forest economic plans are intended for other purposes and their binding indicators (maximum mining level, minimum share of meliorative trees and minimum range of educational interventions) are not eligible to meet all the objectives relating to the conservation of rare habitats. Similarly, their limited validity does not allow long-term planning of the protection of the territory.
89. Nor can it be attested to the notion that comparable protection will ensure the expansion of new small-area specially protected areas (national nature reserves, national natural heritage, nature reserves, natural monument or monument tree). Small-scale specially protected territories are an eligible instrument for the protection of the most valuable parts of the territory but do not allow for comprehensive protection of the whole territory. Small-scale specially protected areas cannot naturally be declared in areas which, by their characteristics, do not comply with the legal definition of small-scale specially protected areas. However, these areas must also be protected for the purpose of comprehensive protection of the territory as a whole, e.g. to ensure migration, to protect food biotopes or biotopes for reproduction, to adapt the water regime in the landscape, etc. On the contrary, it is the mode of individual CHKO zones that serves this effectively. The fact that the territory of the CHKO may overlap with the territory of the small-scale specially protected territories is not an argument for the lack of need of the CHKO as a whole. On the contrary, it is a standard combination of protection.
90. The essence of the declaration of the CHKO is protection of the territory, which will be comprehensive, flexible and implemented by means and instruments intended for this. It can be argued by the Government that the PTA plan, which is being processed for a limited period of time and allows a flexible and differentiated response to possible changes in conditions, is a more effective and effective protection tool than the appellant of the alternatives which do not allow systematic and comprehensive territorial care.
91. The need for the change was sufficiently documented in the intention to declare the CHKO by reference to the monitoring and evaluation of the status of the AOPK conservation objects (monitoring in 2006 and 2019), by reference to scientific articles showing the loss of specially protected species, the reduction of the quality of forest communities of the lowland meadows, non-forest grassland communities as well as the natural and nature of nearby watercourses, river arms, ponds, wetlands etc.
Assessment of the adequacy of the contested legislation
92. Government regulations also stand up for proportionality (proportionality in the narrower sense).
93. The Constitutional Court takes into account, when weighing conflicting interests, that the anticipated interference in the property law resulting from the declaration of the CHKO does not take the form of an asset waiver (Article 11 (4) of the Charter), but is an adjustment of use in accordance with the social function of ownership (Article 11 (3) of the Charter). Article 11 (3) The Charter applies that ownership is committed and must not be misused to harm the rights of others or in contravention of legally protected general interests. Its performance must not damage human health, nature and the environment beyond the standards laid down by law.
94. Even from the point of view of the ESLP's decision-making practice, measures relating to the "use of property 'within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are examined less strictly than interventions in the form of" disposal' within the meaning of Article 1 of the second sentence of that Article.
95. The Constitutional Court has already expressed a certain degree of restraint in balancing conflicting interests in relation to the declaration of national parks (i.e. stricter regulation, namely more restrictive rights of individuals or of self-government than those of the CHKO), so that the question of the existence of national parks and rules on how to behave in them is politically-technical. It is an ideal conflict (in particular) of so-called environmentalists with entrepreneurs, property owners and representatives of the local authorities to be dealt with in the legislature, not the Constitutional Court. From the point of view of constitutional order, the rules for the choice of the type and level of protection of a natural territory are relatively broad. Therefore, the Constitutional Court cannot provide answers to questions concerning the optimal setting of individual measures [see sp. zn.
96. The Government Regulation (cf. § 5) limits the right of ownership (as well as the right to business) only to the necessary consent of the Nature Protection Authority to some of the activities defined in § 5. It is standard regulation in the mode of CHKO. Nor does the appellant argue that any of the conditions laid down in Section 5 of this Regulation would be out of line with regulations in other LAGs or would be otherwise exceedingly strict or disproportionate in terms of its content.
97. In the level of the law, the restrictions related to the declaration of the CHKO are formulated either for the whole of the CHKO (§ 26 (1) ZOPK), for the territory of its first zone (§ 26 (2) ZOPK) or for the territory of the first and second zones jointly (§ 26 (3) ZOPK). This is standard regulation in every CHO, because it comes directly from the law. The nature of the case affects the exercise of the property rights of those who own the property in the territory of the CHKO and those who carry on business there (cf. paragraphs 73- 74). The appellant does not question or expressly contest the constitutionality of any of the legal restrictions under Paragraph 26 of the EAW.
98. With regard to the right to self-administration, namely the right of municipalities to manage their property, the appellant does not mention a specific provision which should be removed from the requirement of proportionality. Similarly, it does not state that a municipality or part of it is included in the territory of the CHKO which does not at all meet the conditions after inclusion. Therefore, the objections to the infringement of the right to self-administration also remain very general.
99. The Constitutional Court therefore assessed the proportionality of the legislation in the context of the appellant's basic argument, but could not naturally address all possible hypothetical effects on specific owners, municipalities or entrepreneurs, since their solution will always be influenced by the legal and factual circumstances of each individual situation.
100. As the Government expressed, there were around 300 meetings with representatives of self-government, economic operators, public authorities and local citizens before the declaration of the CHKO, in an effort to find an adequate solution. Out of 15 municipalities, 5 municipalities objected, many comments from municipalities were accepted, e.g. when adjusting the boundaries of the CHKO or dividing the land into zones. The border of the CHKO was defined in such a way that the impact on the municipalities was minimised. CHKO covers only about half a percent of the built-up area and does not cover the continuously built territory of municipalities. In addition, most of the area of CHKO is owned by the State (about 67%). The right to self-administration of municipalities is preserved, municipalities can continue to decide their affairs and their property, only some activities are limited, e.g. by the necessary consent of the nature authority. Again, this is a normal scheme for the protection of CHKO, and none of the appellant's claims suggest that any of the regulations (whether referred to in Section 26 of the ZOPK, or resulting from Section 5 of the contested government regulation) should be disproportionate to the purpose pursued in relation to a particular municipality (e.g. with regard to local conditions).
101. The proposal is primarily reasoned against the declaration of the CHKO as such. However, the Constitutional Court summarises, on the basis of this, that the declaration of the CHKO was an appropriate and necessary means of achieving the legitimate objective of protecting natural wealth. At the same time, it considers this device to be appropriate, since both the ZOPK and the contested regulation are based on standard instruments for the protection of nature and landscape, which, by virtue of the nature of the matter, restrict ownership, the right to business or the right to self-administration, but do not deprive of ownership. A number of restrictions in the territory already result from protection in the form of existing EVL or existing bird areas. The inclusion of a built or built-up area has been minimised when defining the boundaries of the CHKO, not including industrial sites. In defining the protection zones, account was taken of the current use of the territory, the agricultural land was primarily included in the 3rd zone of the CHKO. There is no indication that the objectives are achieved by disproportionate means. However, the legal possibility of compensation for possible damage under Paragraph 58 (2) of the ZOPK ("compensation for the burden on agricultural or forestry management ') is also evidence of the proportionality of the restriction, thereby further mitigating the necessary intervention by means of financial compensation.
102. Even the specific objection concerning the impact on VaK does not indicate the inadequacy of the contested legislation. The contested government regulation contains an exception in Section 5 (1) (a) (2) that the consent of the nature authority is not necessary for "maintenance, operation or repair of water-borne buildings for the production of drinking water '. Despite the restrictions on the new construction of water facilities, it must be taken into account that according to the ZOPK, the ban on construction activity in the 1st zone of CHKO is not absolute. According to Paragraph 43 of the ZOPK, an exemption from the prohibition on construction activities (resulting from Paragraph 26 (2) of the ZOPK) may be granted, inter alia, where" other public interest outweighs the interest of nature protection'. As the supply of drinking water may be of public interest (with increasing importance), the authorisation of new buildings related to the supply of drinking water (new construction water) must be taken into account if necessary. Thus, even in this specific case, the legislation does not constitute a disproportionate concern for the right of ownership or the right to business, as it allows the balancing of conflicting interests in each individual case. In the event of hypothetical excesses by nature conservation authorities, defence is available in the administrative judiciary.
103. The Constitutional Court therefore concludes, from the point of view of the proportionality criterion, that the negative effects of the contested regulation in the form of an intervention in the exercise of property rights, the right to business or the right to self-government are significantly outweighed by the positive effects of the protection of unique territory, which is the largest preserved complex of central Europe's lush forests with exceptional species diversity and international significance.
The restriction of the right to business does not need to be examined separately by a more restrained test
104. Although the right to business is not affected in substance (core) and the contested legislation can therefore only be examined in relation to that right by a restraint test of rationality, it is not necessary to deal with this test in more detail if the legislation has been applied in a stricter proportionality test.
Conclusion
105. The Constitutional Court summarises that the contested Decree of the Government was adopted within the limits of the Constitution laid down by competence and in a constitutional manner. It was first issued by an authorised body, 2. It does not interfere in matters reserved for the law, and 3. It is clear that the legislator's will for a more detailed regulation under the law. The procedure for the approval and examination of the contested regulation did not show any signs of libel.
106. At the same time, the Constitutional Court did not find the contested regulation contrary to the constitutional order. The declaration of the PTA pursues a legitimate objective in the form of the protection of natural resources within the meaning of Article 7 of the Constitution and the protection of the environment within the meaning of Article 35 (1) of the Charter. At the same time, it will stand in the proportionality test, since 1 is an appropriate (eligible) means to meet the objective pursued, and 2 is a means to meet the legitimate objective, since the alternatives under consideration are not capable of meeting the legitimate objective to a comparable extent, and finally 3 is also an appropriate means, since the strong interest in protecting a significant natural site also outweighs the negative effects in the form of interference with ownership, the right to business and the right to self-government.
107. Therefore, the Constitutional Court rejected the application under Paragraph 70 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act because it did not find its inconstitutionality.
108. The Constitutional Court did not decide on the application for a preliminary hearing under Section 39 of the Constitutional Law on the Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., (separately), since the proposal was decided in the shortest possible time.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No. 495 / 2025 Coll., sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 17 / 25 on the application for annulment of Government Decree No. 55 / 2025 Coll., on the Protected Landscape Areas of the Soutok |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | - |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 02.12.2025 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0