The court again rejected the complaint of the ombudsman regarding the Šantovka Tower in Olomouc

Olomouc - The Olomouc Regional Court today again rejected the lawsuit of the public defender of rights against the territorial decision for the construction of the Šantovka Tower building near the city’s listed heritage reserve in Olomouc. Due to the lawsuit and the suspensive effect, the investor could not apply for a building permit. The regional court began to reconsider the case after the Supreme Administrative Court (NSS) annulled its previous verdict, which had rejected the ombudsman’s lawsuit in March 2022. The judges concluded at that time that the defender of rights had not demonstrated a significant public interest. Ombudsman Stanislav Křeček stated today that he would file another cassation complaint with the NSS.

"The regional court again rejected the lawsuit of the public defender of rights, as it concluded that the public defender of rights did not prove that there was a significant public interest in filing the lawsuit. The regional court was bound by the annulment ruling of the NSS, acted within its confines, performed the necessary evidence gathering, yet concluded that the plaintiff did not meet their burden of proof," said the chairperson of the panel, Barbora Berková. According to her, the ombudsman did not demonstrate the existence of a risk of systemic bias among officials who decided in the territorial proceedings.

The 74-meter-high Šantovka Tower project is backed by the Redstone group of entrepreneur Richard Morávek. Heritage protectors disagree with its construction, arguing that it would damage the historical panorama. Morávek claims the opposite. "We are pleased that the court has once again confirmed with its decision that our legal opinion is correct and that all decisions regarding the Šantovka Tower project were made in accordance with the law," said Redstone spokesman Petr Hlávka to ČTK.

According to Hlávka, the court's decision is a precedent for the functioning of the state administration. "If the office of the public defender of rights could enter the jurisdiction of state administration bodies and challenge their decisions without sufficient justification and evidence, it would make the system completely dysfunctional. It is also sad that the decision regarding a single building permit can take more than a decade in the Czech Republic," he added.

The lawsuit in the public interest was filed with the city hall in 2019 by former ombudswoman Anna Šabatová, who stated that officials violated several laws when deciding on the Šantovka Tower and granted the location of the building based on illegal binding opinions and contrary to the urban planning. However, the territorial decision has since become legally effective, allowing the investor to apply for a building permit. The ombudswoman thus requested the court for a suspensive effect of the lawsuit and was successful. The NSS also granted the suspensive effect to the cassation complaint. Its panel then stated that the requirement for a significant public interest is fulfilled by Křeček's claim regarding the risk of systemic bias of officials.

Křeček pointed out that in 2010, the city hall signed a cooperation agreement with the Šantovka Tower investor, which included the city's responsibility for the outcome of the project, which is not usual. However, according to the judge, the ombudsman did not identify anyone among the city representatives who would have an interest in the outcome of the proceedings, expressed support for the project, and could influence the relevant officials.