Who Are We? What Do We Seek?
The Environmental Law Service (referred to by its Czech abbreviation EPS below) is a
non-governmental, non-profit organization of lawyers who use law to further the public interest.
Our aim is to eliminate cases of unlawful and improper decision-making by state offices in matters of the environment and human rights, to help people gain access to the courts, to build the knowledge and skills of non-profit organizations' staffs,
to expand the ranks of public-interest lawyers, and to help bring about a high-quality legal code.
This way of using the tools of law to protect and support important societal values is "public interest law,"
and thus EPS is a public interest law organization.
Students at the school of law in Brno's Masaryk University founded EPS in 1995 as a volunteer organization.
At present, it has two offices: in Brno, the largest city in Moravia-the smaller of the country's two main historical regions-and in Tábor, a city in the other region, Bohemia. ![[>] TOP](eps.data/img/top.gif)
![[>] INDEX](eps.data/img/index.gif)
EPS's Legislative Activities
EPS runs a campaign against restrictions to public participation in administrative procedures, against undemocratic and anti-ecological provisions in new bills, and for the right to file suits in the public interest.
Mr Prosser said: 'You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time you know.'
'Appropriate time?' hooted Arthur. 'Appropriate time? The first I knew about it was when a workman arrived at my home yesterday.
I asked him if he'd come to clean the windows and he said no he'd come to demolish the house. He didn't tell me straight away of course. Oh no. First he wiped a couple of windows and charged me a fiver. Then he told me.'
'But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.'
'Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.'
'But the plans were on display...'
'On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'
'That's the display department.'
'With a torch.'
'Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'
'So had the stairs.'
'But look, you found the notice didn't you?'
'Yes,' said Arthur, 'yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.' A cloud passed overhead. It cast a shadow over Arthur Dent as he lay propped up on his elbow in the cold mud. It cast a shadow over Arthur Dent's house. Mr Prosser frowned at it. 'It's not as if it's a particularly nice house,' he said. 'I'm sorry, but I happen to like it.' 'You'll like the bypass.'
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
We emphasized legislative activities strongly in 2001. The main reason was the seriousness of the bills proposed this year in the fields of law to which EPS's activities relate. These bills were put forward by both the Government1 and by politicians from ČSSD and ODS, the "opposition-contract" parties.2 They generally served the interests of the strongest ministries (e.g. the Ministry of Interior) and lobbies (e.g. industrial and nuclear), and contained numerous provisions tending towards the restriction of every citizen's right to effectively participate in the administration of public affairs.
Based on our previous experience-where the people and institutions we addressed did not pay our comments the attention that their seriousness demanded-we concentrated not only on drafting comments, but also, and much more than in the past, on negotiations and pressure to promote their implementation. We thereby crossed the border into lobbying, which we do not consider a priori as negative, when it means neither dishonest practices, nor the loss of an organization's independence due to supporting a single political philosophy.
The Act on Administrative Procedures (The Administrative Code)
A bill that would drastically restrict citizens' rights is overturned at the eleventh hour
A Government proposal for changes to the Act on Administrative Procedures (The Administrative Code) grew, during 2001, into an acute and unprecedented threat to the protection of citizens' rights. If passed, it would bring increased room for corruption, discrimination, willful and wayward decisions by officials, and restrictions to public supervision of officials during administrative procedures.
We commented copiously on the bill during its preparation and discussion; in doing so, we pointed out both the above fundamental objections and a host of defects in its form and content. We pointed out e.g. its conflicts with the Constitution and the Aarhus Convention on Public Participation in Decision-Making and the overall absurdity of its conception-one motivated by an effort to quicken the permit process for environmentally questionable construction projects, to the detriment of the rights of affected citizens and the public. The Ministry of Interior, and later the Government, ignored the essence of our comments. We thus launched a legislative campaign including the following activities:
a) A petition drive-A petition, Against the Retreat from Democratic Principles in Laws, was formulated by a petition committee representing a large portion of the non-governmental sector-from the major environmental and heritage associations to representatives of child-protection and refugee-aid organizations-and even including a mayor from a Moravian village. We set up 20 signature points around the country, so that both urban and rural citizens could sign it. Meanwhile, we created a web page (www.i-eps.cz/petice) that informed about the bill and enabled visitors to sign the petition electronically.
b) Bringing the issue into the media-We successfully promoted the issue in the prime-time news; two discussions in the Czech national radio program Radiofórum took place on the issue; we appeared as guests in the 21 program on ČT2, the second national channel, and in two broadcasts of Czech Radio Free Europe's Zeměžluč environmental program; one part of the acclaimed Nedej se environmental-journalism TV series was filmed regarding the bill; and a number of articles on it appeared in the press. We spent funds from the Open Society Foundation to have 1500 A3 posters3 printed with the title "The Ministry of Interior Is Preparing to Restrict Citizens' Rights," informing in brief of the bill's dangerous aspects and of the petition. We arranged for these posters to be displayed from September 15th to October 15th, 2001 in all regional capitals' public transportation.
c) Proposals for changes to the law; lobbying-we drafted over forty change proposals while the bill was being discussed in Parliament's lower house, the Poslanecká sněmovna (called the "lower house" below). We met many deputies from parties represented in the lower house. We made several speeches at meetings of the lower house's constitutional-law committee (even a speech at a meeting held outside Parliament) in an attempt to convince its members of the necessity of our proposed changes. (Later in the legislative process, we focused only on a few of our most important proposals.) We also pointed out the bill's dangerous aspects to members of the state administration and local politicians, as the amended law would cause them problems too. During the "Brandýs Forum" (discussed in detail further on in this report), we convinced the chairpersons of the parties KDU-ČSL and Unie svobody to swear in writing, as one of their obligations towards the non-profit sector, to help preserve participants' equal rights in administrative procedures, and an overall democratic nature in the new Code.
Though we did convince several deputies to submit and support the change proposals we had drafted, the bill slid through, without these changes and in the form in which the Ministry of Interior had drafted it, all the way to the final phase of discussion in the lower house. Only during the final voting-in the bill's third reading-on February 15th, 2002, did the lower house vote down the bill by a mere 4-vote margin. This was not, of course, only our doing, but it can be said that we significantly contributed to the bill's rejection. One piece of evidence for this is the fact that MPs from ODS, who voted against the bill entirely to further their own political aims, defended their stance to a large extent using "our" arguments. KDU-ČSL chairman Cyril Svoboda, just like (with one exception) all of his party's other deputies, voted in favor of the law, as did half of Unie svobody's deputies (and, of course, all those from the ruling ČSSD).
The meeting of the lower house's next plenum first let the bill through into its "third" (in truth however fifth!) reading. But there, fortunately, the bill failed by a seven-vote margin. All deputies present from the governmental ČSSD voted for the law, as well as many (seven!) deputies from the theoretically pro-citizen Unie svobody. All deputies present from ODS, KSČM, and KDU-ČSL, as well as five US deputies, voted no or abstained. This meant definitive salvation (at least for this election period) from the most serious legislative attack since 1989 on not only the public's right to participate in the administration of public affairs, but also, and especially, the principles of legality, legal assurances, protection for the rights of participants in procedures, and openness regarding how the public administration performs its work. This is a great victory for all those who have been opposing this attack (which of course does not only mean EPS). But it is by no means a "final victory." Quite the contrary! ODS representatives above all have declared (we must credit them here: openly, honestly declared) that they opposed the administrative code in spite of the fact that it restricted the rights of the public ("environmental activists") in administrative procedures-a fact they deemed a great plus for the bill, but one that did not in their opinion balance out its defects. Thus we can strongly expect a newer and perhaps yet more serious attack after the elections.
The Amendment to the Act on Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection
The destruction of public participation in environmental procedures was averted.
ODS MPs Brousek, Drda, and Sehoř submitted a bill to amend the Act on Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection (Czech act no. 114/1992 Sb.), with the real aim of restricting, or even shutting the door on, public participation in administrative procedures regarding nature conservation and landscape protection by imposing senseless formal restrictions. They counted on MPs' being poorly informed on the issue and passing the bill as the "technical" or "cosmetic" modification that they claimed it was. We therefore sent MPs a letter explaining the true aims of those presenting the amendment and the consequences that passing it would have. In the end, its proponents tabled it.
Besides this "rescue work," EPS twice submitted detailed comments on the Ministry of Environment's prepared amendment of the same law.
The Campaign to Give Environmentalists and Preservationists
the Right to File actio popularis (Public-Interest Suits)
Your life is at stake when your neighbor's house is burning.
The new act on administrative court proceedings introduces the concept of "suits in the public interest." It places the right to file suits against officials' infractions of the law solely in the hands of the Attorney General, i.e. of a representative of the State, and moreover one closely watched by his superiors, who occupies an important post and probably will not seek to get involved in controversial cases. We find this state of affairs entirely defective. We therefore drafted proposals for changes through which we want to also give environmental and preservation non-governmental organizations ("NGOs" below) the right to file such suits. We have met many times to negotiate with deputies, particularly members of the lower house's constitutional-law committee, and try to defend this proposal.
Draft for the "Act on the Environment"
We are drafting a position paper opposing the controversial Environmental "Codex."
The draft for the "Codex," a new, general, and comprehensive legal regulation for the field of environmental law, is the fruit of a project of the Czech organization The Institute for Environmental Policy, Holland's One Europe Foundation, and the Ministry of Environment. We consider the proposals the team has drafted so far to be rather counterproductive; in some cases, the proposed regulations would mean a definite rollback of legal tools for environmental protection.
On request of the Ministry of Environment, we drafted, in April, an extensive position paper, which we then presented at the public review proceedings and provided to One Europe Foundation. The Foundation then requested that we try to involve other NGOs in the process of creating a "large" critical study of the Codex's final version. We prepared a "sub-project" with that as its basic aim, in cooperation with Green Circle. We commenced this sub-project, entitled "Involving NGOs in the Preparation of the Act on the Environment," at the end of the year.
The Act on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control and on the Integrated Pollution Register (IPPC Act)
We succeeded in broadening the circle of those who may participate in IPPC procedures.
The so-called "Act on Integrated Prevention" introduces an integrated permit process (i.e. one joined into a single procedure) for the activities (especially constructing industrial plants) with the largest impacts for components of the environment, i.e. water, air, public health, etc. The bill's original version contained provisions weakening or even negating its stated purpose (e.g. one could conclude from its text that an integrated permit application could not be rejected). EPS's comments on the bill partially solved some of the problems; moreover, we succeeded in widening the public's right to information concerning the integrated permit process. Thanks to other NGOs' work on other parts of the law, it retained, despite pressure from the industrial lobby and efforts by ODS deputies, a relatively broad requirement for polluters to make information on the hazardous substances they emit publicly accessible.
Act on the Šumava National Park
We fought the shrinking and white-collar plundering of a national park.
EPS took part in the campaign against the bill amending the Act on the Šumava National Park, which was to reduce the park's area significantly. Companies that build mammoth recreation centers would welcome a drastic constriction of the park, as would logging companies, since the area that was to have been torn out of the park contained 10 million m3 of wood, worth approx. 15 billion crowns ($454,545,000). EPS helped non-governmental organizations compose their own version of the bill, which, besides maintaining the park's size, brought a separation of its (state) administration from economic activities in its forests. The proposed changes' main aim was to strengthen public control over for-profit activities in this legally protected area. An EPS lawyer participated in two meetings of mayors from the towns and villages of the Šumavas, and in one meeting each of the lower house's environment and public-administration committees. Unfortunately, the lower house rejected our bill in the end.
Proposal to Amend the Construction Act
A thousand words painting one false picture.
The proposal to amend the Construction Act contains a plethora of general proclamations on how important it is to get the public involved in decision-making regarding environmentally questionable construction projects. Its actual provisions, however, tend more towards "passivication" of the active public and a narrowing of their rights to what it terms "consulting participation." We thus submitted official comments on the proposal to this effect. We also drafted, as one of the outputs of our urban sprawl seminar (see below), an alternative proposal for principles of land-use planning and public participation in it.
The Atomic Act
Aiding anti-nuclear organizations in their attempt to introduce public participation in the permit process for nuclear technologies.
Anti-nuclear NGOs submitted comments on the Atomic Act, aiming to enable the public and communities to participate in nuclear facilities' permit processes. EPS took part in the process of formulating certain comments and participated in meetings of the Government's Legislative Council. The resistance of those who want a non-democratic permit process for our voracious nuclear projects could not, however be broken, even as regards communities' participation in permit proceedings. ČSSD and ODS deputies voted in harmony to kill the bill.
The Act on Assembly
EPS struggled to defend the right to publicly assemble-or organize an assembly without harassment-against legislative attack.
In 2001, EPS's human-rights program submitted, for the first time, comments on a bill-on the Ministry of Interior's draft of the Act on Assembly. (Considering both its Czech name and its contents, it cannot receive the perhaps more natural moniker "Right-to-Assembly Act.") For more details, see the section on the activities of OPS (our Civic Legal Observers).
EPS and the Brandýs Forum
The Brandýs Forum was an initiative of personalities from various sectors of civic life, formally assembled in Institut demokracie pro všechny (the "Democracy-for-All Institute"), who initiated meetings with politicians from various parties (meetings with the chairpersons of KDU-ČSL, Unie Svobody and ČSSD were held) in the town of Brandýs nad Labem. Participants discussed the problems the civic sector faces, and for Hana Marvanová and Cyril Svoboda-from Unie Svobody and KDU-ČSL respectively-the forum led to the signing of the "Brandýs Declaration," a set of concrete, unilateral obligations, mainly in the area of legislation, that the politicians undertook through their signatures. Participants from the side of civic initiatives promised nothing, and especially not political support for individual parties.
After the dissolution of the Čtyřkoalice, the "Coalition of Four" to which the mentioned parties had belonged, most signers received offers from Marvanová, now chairwoman of Unie svobody, to negotiate about joining the 2002 candidate lists of US and KDU-ČSL. Most accepted the offer. Those who accepted then declared the "Brandýs Declaration" to be a possible foundation for systematic cooperation between them and the mentioned parties. We deeply disagreed with this, and distanced ourselves from this group's initiative.
Neither the Forum nor the Declaration were to be a tool to promote the interests of civil society from inside any given political party, and all the less were they meant as support for a single political movement-otherwise, we would not have taken part in the Forum.
Furthermore, the negotiations led signers to reduce their pressure on the political process, because they now had a conflict of interests-in being accepted for the US and KDU-ČSL lists on the one hand, and in forcing US and KDU-ČSL politicians to meet the obligations from the Declaration on the other. This absurd situation climaxed on Friday, February 8th, when the Brandýs group organized a press conference where it stated, among other things, that "potential candidates have no problems with the priorities of KDU-ČSL, and the Brandýs Declaration is proof of this." And on that very same day, KDU-ČSL votes (including a vote by its chairman) bore the Administrative Code, in the wording authored by the Ministry of Interior, into its third reading. In so doing, the KDU-ČSL chief grossly violated an obligation from the Declaration: to "work for the passing of the Administrative Code bill in a form that maintains an equal standing for all participants in administrative procedures."
Participation in legal cases intended to protect the environment and human rights (no matter whether under our own name or via free consulting for other entities) is a key part of our work. We draw from our own cases when preparing the programs for our training events, and they are the foundation for our brochures and legislative materials.
Last year, we began focusing more and more strongly on our own legal actions, "actions in our own name," alongside our usual free legal aid to NGOs and civic associations. We undertook cases not covered by any other NGO, and which were thus no "service" for another, but our own initiative. This especially applies for legal protection of human rights-the OPH (Civic Legal Observers) project, the Center for the Legal Protection of Children, and the Counseling Center for Women in Crisis.
| Download ZIP | Download PDF |
![[>] HOME](eps.data/img/home.gif){kind=small}
