Imagine a situation, where you are living happily in your family home in the countryside, you make your coffee every morning and go out in the garden to enjoy the view of an undisturbed landscape, where all you hear are the sounds of birds and the gentle rustling of the nearby forest. Idyllic, isn’t it? You will probably all say it is. But does Czech law provide you with sufficient guarantees for undisturbed idyll, more specifically, do you have a right to undisturbed “living comfort”?

The answer may surprise you. The current Building Act provides for the institute of objections in proceedings for permitting an intention, such as proceedings for permitting construction or building alterations.[1] The purpose of this institute is to guarantee the right for the parties to the individual proceedings, which are typically the owners of neighbouring properties,[2] to intervene in the proceedings and to draw attention to potential interference with their rights and obligations as a result of the construction. Objections can be directed both at the non-compliance of the construction with the technical requirements for construction and at the consequences that the construction may cause. The most common will be so-called immissions, such as noise, pollution, vibration or shading.

It is the aforementioned immissions that are the individual factors that can contribute to housing being unhealthy or unsuitable for different groups of users. In other words, as the Supreme Administrative Court has stated, these factors can have a combined effect on the impairment of the living comfort.[3] The Supreme Administrative Court defines the living comfort as “the sum of factors and influences which contribute to (...) the creation of a suitable atmosphere of peaceful living”[4]. The very content of the concept of “living comfort” is ensured by the quality of individual components such as air cleanliness, noise level, dust level, amount of greenery, etc. In other words, if your idyll with a cup of coffee turns into a daily routine where you start your departure for work by putting in earplugs, a dust mask over your mouth, putting on your sneakers, and instead of walking down a nice alley to work, you complete an obstacle course between piles of gravel, rubble, and other construction materials, you can quite rightly argue that your home comforts are gone.

It is probably no secret that everything has its limits, though. In general, everyone’s freedom ends where another’s begins.[5] If your future neighbour wants to build and does so in accordance with the law, he cannot be forbidden to do so just because it will cause discomfort to others for some time. However, it is always a question of intensity, i.e. to what extent your “comfort” is disturbed and whether there is a legitimate reason for this on the part of your potential neighbour – the disturber of comfort.

The case law has taken a quite logical position on these issues, i.e., that it is appropriate to assess individual interferences with convenience always taking into account local circumstances or customs.[6] Construction activity in the centre of Prague will be treated differently from that in the countryside.

This does not mean that there is no chance to defend yourselves against an intruder. Should you find yourself in a similar situation, it is always a good idea to identify in more detail what the disturbing factors are or how you see the situation as being out of step with local customs. In such a case, according to the Supreme Administrative Court, the building authority should listen to these objections and either impose conditions that eliminate the disturbing factors or not permit the construction at all.[7] And in the event of failure in the construction procedure, there is still a right to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage, which may include reduced comfort of living.

[1] Provisions of Section 190 of Act No. 283/2021 Coll., the Building Act

[2] E.g. parties under the provisions of Section 182(d) of Act No. 283/2021 Coll., the Building Act

[3] Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 2 February 2006, Case No. 2 As 44/2005

[4] Ibid.

[5] Mill, John Stuart (1956). On Liberty. Cambridge University Press.

[6] Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 17 July 2016, Case No. 9 As 68/2016

[7] Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 30 April 2020, Case No. 6 As 171/2019