The Constitutional Court confirmed a groundbreaking ruling with the interpretation of the floor area index

Brno - The Constitutional Court (ÚS) rejected a complaint against last year's breakthrough verdict, according to which authorities cannot allow the construction of a larger building than permitted by the zoning plan through a simple modification of the floor area index. The verdict was issued last year by the extended panel of the Supreme Administrative Court (NSS). It decided that the index can only be increased through the standard procedure according to the new construction law, namely in the form of a general measure. The complaint from IMOS development was deemed manifestly unfounded by the constitutional judges, as the ČTK discovered from the court database today.
    The extended panel accepted the verdict last year based on a dispute over a controversial residential building in Brno on Majdalenky. The project involves the company IMOS development. In its complaint, the company unsuccessfully alleged a violation of the principle of legal certainty. The company also failed with its proposal for the ÚS to strike out part of the administrative court procedure, specifically the passages governing the functioning of the extended panel of the NSS.
    "The floor area index is a general regulation of spatial arrangement of the territory, i.e., a limit on its use, the definition of which is binding," states the resolution of the extended panel. The index quantitatively expresses the intensity of use of a certain territory in square meters of gross floor area per square meter of basic area. Essentially, it sets the maximum permissible density of development and the height of planned buildings.
    According to activists, previously, authorities could enable higher and bulkier buildings than what the zoning plan accounted for through "magical" increases of the index. Now, changes must be made through a general measure, involving the participation of the people affected by the construction. The procedure can then be reviewed by the administrative court.
    According to the constitutional judges, nothing can be criticized about the Supreme Administrative Court. "From the perspective of the Constitutional Court, there is no room for intervention in the decision-making activities of an independent court," states the resolution prepared by the reporting judge Radovan Suchánek.