The Constitutional Court refused to consider the senators' proposal to repeal the government regulation amendment on noise regulation, which significantly increases the permitted noise from traffic near up to 80% of transportation constructions in CZ
Last week, the Constitutional Court confirmed the validity of Government Regulation No. 433/2022 Coll., on the protection of health from the adverse effects of noise and vibration. The challenged regulation significantly increases the noise limits near transportation constructions. This drastically expands the scope of the increased limits compared to the previously applied special increased limit known as the "old noise burden," which was supposed to be temporary, now affecting nearly the entire territory of the Czech Republic. The Constitutional Court refused to deal with the proposal and dismissed it. Thus, it did not address the submission supported by accredited noise experts, scientists from the Czech Technical University (CTU), 23 senators, 150 mayors, and approximately 1500 citizens signed under petitions. The proposal before the Constitutional Court was managed by our experienced attorney, Mgr. Beata Sabolová, LL.M. The proposal was consulted and prepared by a team of specialized lawyers in both constitutional law and environmental law.
The amendment to the government noise regulation permits an unprecedented increase in the allowed external noise levels around transportation constructions, with increases up to 3x, 6x, and for older third-class roads, purpose roads, and railways, even up to 20x more permitted noise, thus remaining legal.
A crucial problem is that this increase in permitted noise levels is automatically projected into protected indoor spaces of buildings such as apartments, schools, kindergartens, hospitals, etc., according to the public health law.
The law does not require proof of compliance with internal limits when demonstrating compliance with external limits. However, this system was set for the original limits, not the newly increased ones. Therefore, there has effectively been a corresponding increase in permitted noise inside protected buildings, i.e., 3x, 6x, or up to 20x, depending on the type of transportation construction near the residential building, school, kindergarten, or hospital.
WHO scientific studies clearly show that such an increase in permitted limits has significant negative impacts on the health of residents. This leads to increased healthcare costs, higher mortality, cardiovascular diseases, insomnia, irritability, mental disorders, and other illnesses.
The senators' proposal thus argued that, in contradiction to the public health protection law and fundamental constitutional principles, the health of the population is entirely at the mercy of transportation construction investors. This is without conducting any analysis of the impacts on public health, as explicitly required by the law on public health protection.
The decision of the Constitutional Court could further exacerbate the ongoing tension between local governments and investors in road and rail constructions, particularly in areas already heavily affected by noise. Coincidentally, these are precisely where new, crucial infrastructural constructions such as highways, city bypasses, and high-speed railway tracks are planned today in the Czech Republic.
The ongoing concerns of local communities and their representatives, who are striving to reduce noise pollution, further emphasize the broader issues of public health and environmental management in the formulation of national transportation policy.
Representing the senators, Jitka Seitlová (KDU-ČSL) stated that she would respect the finding but consider further actions to reduce noise pollution in the Czech Republic. "We believe that noise limits should not be increased, as it affects health," Seitlová said.
The Constitutional Court rejected most of the proposal because it only called for the repeal of the amending provisions and not the final wording of the regulation post-amendment. Such a procedure, however, is not possible according to the Court. "Thus, the Constitutional Court could not address most of the questions raised by the proposer," stated Daniela Zemanová, the reporting judge, in response to a question from ČT24.
"We proposed the repeal specifically of the amendment because it was adopted in violation of the public health protection law and because it incredibly increased the noise limits. We did not want to interfere with the government's authority to set noise limits as such, only the amendment was objectionable. I believe this approach is entirely justified," responded attorney Beáta Sabolová.
The government may only issue regulations based on the law and within its limits, in this case, set by the law on public health protection. According to the senators, the purpose of the law is to reduce noise pollution, not increase it, and to contribute to people's health, not endanger it. "If the law explicitly states this, then we based our argument on it. We still think that this argumentation is correct and justified," Sabolová said.
What next? On the same day that the Constitutional Court's decision was issued, a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights was also released, condemning the state for not doing enough against climate change. Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that we are being approached to file a similar complaint.
Many people in the Czech Republic, including leading experts, believe that the area of noise protection in the Czech Republic is now completely paralyzed. We fully agree with this. Therefore, we will seek ways to remedy this. A change in legislation will probably be inevitable. Filing international lawsuits against the Czech Republic will be our last resort.
Do you have any further questions? Do you need help or advice?
Please do not hesitate to contact us!
Mgr. Beata Sabolová, LL.M., Attorney - contact: sabolova@chslegal.eu
Mgr. Jaroslav Hroza, Attorney and Partner - contact: hroza@chslegal.eu