Request for information regarding implementation of the EIA Directive in the Czech Republic
Dear Environment,
Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:
According to the 2022 Environmental Implementation Review for the Czech Republic (SWD/2022/264 final), the European Commission noted that Directive 2011/92/EU (as amended) has not been correctly transposed into Czech national law, especially regarding access to justice in environmental matters.
The report highlights that the public and NGOs face difficulties in accessing judicial review of EIA procedures, and that current Czech laws do not provide effective legal remedies, particularly for plans and programmes required by EU law.
The report also states that the Commission would assess the compliance of the Czech legislative package adopted in 2023 and take further action if necessary.
I would therefore kindly request the following:
1. Has the Commission completed its assessment of the 2023 Czech legislative changes, including the new Building Act and related amendments, with respect to compliance with Directive 2011/92/EU?
2. Has the Commission concluded whether the revised Czech laws ensure sufficient access to justice in EIA cases, in line with EU requirements?
3. If shortcomings remain, what specific follow-up actions or procedures is the Commission taking or planning?
If available, I would also appreciate access to any official documents or correspondence related to this assessment.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Sincerely,
Beata Sabolová
Dear Sir or Madam,
We are writing to you concerning your request for access to documents sent
on 21/05/2025 and registered on 22/05/2025 under case number 2025/2804.
Since you have not indicated your postal address, we are not able to start
handling your request. The 15 working days to reply to your request will
start running only when you send us your postal address.
You can send your postal address by replying to this e-mail. If we do not
receive your reply we may close this case.
Please note that you can submit a request for access to Commission
documents via the portal [1]'Request a Commission document', which does
not require you to indicate your postal address.
Why do we need your personal postal address?
Since 1 April 2014, the submission of a postal address became a mandatory
feature when submitting an application for access to Commission documents
via an e-mail. We would like to explain why we need your postal address in
order to register and handle your application for access to documents when
submitted via e-mail:
• Firstly, to obtain legal certainty as regards the date you received
the European Commission reply to your application for public access to
documents. Article 297 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU) states that 'decisions which specify to whom
they are addressed, shall be notified to those to whom they are
addressed and shall take effect upon such notification.' In line with
this provision, if the Commission does not grant full access to the
requested documents, it notifies the reply to the applicant via
registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt or via delivery
service. This requires an indication of a valid postal address by the
applicant;
• Secondly, to apply correctly the [2]Data Protection Regulation (EU)
2018/1725. Knowing whether the applicant is an EU resident (or not) is
necessary for deciding which conditions shall apply for the
transmissions of personal data to applicants for access to documents.
These conditions are not the same for recipients established in the
Union and for recipients in third countries. As the vast majority of
the documents requested contain personal data, the Commission cannot
ensure the correct application of the data protection rules in the
absence of a postal address;
• Thirdly, to apply correctly [3]Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Article
4(1)(b) of that Regulation refers to the protection of the privacy and
integrity of the individual and has to be applied in line with the
Data Protection Regulation;
• Fourthly, to protect the interest of other citizens and safeguard the
principle of good administration. The Commission has to treat all
citizens equally by ensuring that the legal framework for public
access to documents is respected. For example, it has to verify
whether Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is being evaded
by introducing several requests under different identities. Indeed, in
its Ryanair judgment ([4]EU:T:2010:511), the General Court confirmed
that Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 cannot be evaded by
splitting an application into several, seemingly separate, parts. In
addition, the Commission has to make sure that the legal framework is
respected and the right of access to documents is not abused by making
requests under an invented identity.
The considerations above show that the request for and the consequent
processing of the applicant's postal address is not only appropriate, but
also strictly necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the
public interest within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Data Protection
Regulation, namely providing a smooth and effective access to documents.
Yours faithfully,
Directorate-General for Environment - Access to Documents
European Commission
References
Visible links
1. https://www.ec.europa.eu/transparency/do...
2. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
3. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
4. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
Dear Environment,
to your request I enclose my postal adress:
URBANIUM LEGAL
Mgr. Beata Sabolová LL.M., advokátka
Komunardů 28
170 00 Praha 7 - Holešovice
Yours faithfully,
Beata Sabolova
Dear Sir or Madam,
We hereby acknowledge the receipt of your request for access to documents
sent on 21/05/2025 and registered on 23/05/2025 under the case number
2025/2804.
We will handle your request within 15 working days as of the date of
registration. The time-limit expires on 17/06/2025. We will let you know
if we need to extend this time limit for additional 15 working days.
To find more information on how we process your personal data, please see
[1]the privacy statement.
Yours faithfully,
Directorate-General for Environment - Access to Documents
European Commission
References
Visible links
1. https://ec.europa.eu/info/principles-and...
Dear Ms Sabolová,
Please find attached a letter addressed to you.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate E – Compliance, Governance & Support to Member States
ENV.E.3 – Environmental Compliance – Implementation
Dear [email address],
Dear Sir or Madam,
First of all, I would like to thank you for your previous response regarding the closed infringement procedure Ref. Ares(2025)4925064 - 20/06/2025, conducted against the Czech Republic in connection with the incorrect transposition of Directive 2011/92/EU, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU (the EIA Directive).
From your response, it follows that the European Commission in this procedure examined the compliance of Czech legislation with Article 11 (access to judicial review) of the EIA Directive from the following perspectives:
- The requirement for regular renewal of signatures (200 signatures) for NGOs' standing was not considered an undue obstacle regarding the time limitation,
- There was a lack of active standing of the so-called privileged NGOs against the absence of a decision on the screening procedure, which defect was remedied by an amendment.
Therefore, I would kindly ask you to inform me whether the European Commission, in assessing the compliance of Czech legislation with the EIA Directive (in this procedure or any other at any time in the past), has addressed the issue of timely and effective judicial review of (final) binding EIA opinions issued pursuant to § 9a(1) of Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on Environmental Impact Assessment, and their compliance with Article 11 of the EIA Directive.
Specifically, please inform me if the Commission has assessed whether:
- The indirect and limited judicial review of binding EIA opinions applied in the Czech Republic (i.e. only within the legality review of the building permit issued in subsequent proceedings, without the possibility of annulment of the EIA opinion by the court, and with the full evidential burden on the affected public) complies with the requirement of Article 11(4) to ensure a fair, impartial, and timely procedure which must not be unduly costly for the affected public,
- This limited and indirect judicial review is consistent with the general principles of equivalence and effectiveness of judicial review under EU law,
- This judicial review in the Czech Republic is compatible with the case law of the CJEU, especially in the case Commission v. Germany, C-137/14.
If the Commission has dealt with these issues, please inform me when, in which procedure or assessment, and with what outcome or conclusions the Commission reached on this matter.
Thank you for providing the requested information.
Yours sincerely,
Beata Sabolova
Dear Ms Sabolová,
We confirm receipt of your email and that it has been forwarded to the colleagues dealing with the request
Kind regards,
European Commission
Directorate-General Environment
Environmental Compliance – Enforcement
Unit ENV E3 - B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
Website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment