The Supreme Court ruled that if an investor removes an existing public road to make way for a construction project and builds a replacement road in its place, the investor does not automatically become the owner of the replacement road. The replacement road is to be transferred to the entity that owned the original road—typically the municipality or the state.
The essence of the decision lies in the interpretation of the former legal framework governing roads, under which an investor was obligated to provide an adequate replacement road in the event of the closure of a highway, road, or local road. The Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of this obligation was not to create private property for the investor, but to maintain public transportation services in the area. According to the court, the investor therefore fulfills only a compensatory obligation: at its own expense, it replaces the road that its project eliminates, but the new road must continue to serve the public under the same legal regime as the original road.
The decision is of practical significance for municipalities, regions, the state, and investors who have in the past built transportation infrastructure as a replacement for discontinued public roads. The Supreme Court rejected the interpretation according to which ownership would depend solely on who financed and physically constructed the project. According to the court, the purpose of the replacement road and its integration into the public transportation network are key factors for legal assessment. This ruling may thus contribute to greater legal certainty in disputes over who should own, manage, and maintain such roads.
Our team of experienced attorneys will help you solve any legal issue. Within 24 hours we’ll evaluate your situation and suggest a step-by-step solution, including all costs. The price for this proposal is only CZK 690, and this is refunded to you when you order service from us.