The Journal is published by the Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic in cooperation with the Cave Administration of the Czech Republic, the Krkonoše Mts. National Park Administration, the Bohemian Forest Mts. National Park Administration, the Podyjí National Park Administration and the The Bohemian Switzerland National Park Administration. It has been published since 1946.
cs / en
Nature Conservation 4/2009 — 31. 8. 2009 — Nature Conservation Legislation — Print article in pdf
Who Shall Be Punished for Tort against the Act on the Protection of Nature and the Landscape – Devel
vývoj názorů aplikační praxe
Název článku jsem zvolila jako parafrázi již značně letitého příspěvku M. Pekárka1, ve kterém se autor jednoznačně vyslovil ve prospěch odpovědnosti souseda, který na požádání vlastníka v rámci dobrých sousedských vztahů pokácel stromy, aniž by existovalo pravomocné povolení k jejich kácení.
The author summarizes development of legal opinions on the issue of sanction responsibility of individual persons who participated in activities under Act No. 114/1992 Gazette on the Protection of Nature and the Landscape, as amended later, considered as a tort. She quotes the substantial part of administrative tribunal judicature as well as opinions in juridical literature. Equivocation has been caused by the lack of the definite legal regulations in responsibility of so-called accomplices (the persons who have not personally participated in a tort but they ordered it) in punishment of offences and other administrative torts. Within punishment of crimes, the organizer and abettor are punishable to the perpetrator for criminal act himself. The traditional approach that principally a person who made the crime in his own name is always punishable is based on critical part of the relevant judicature. The responsibility of a contracted juridical body/legal person or a natural person-private entrepreneur for an administrative tort is objective and it cannot be acquitted due to contractual clause with a contracting person or due to infringement of duties by the former. The above act only exceptionally includes the fact of an offence or other administrative tort which directly deals with a contracting person. Nevertheless, the judicature generally allows to bring of a contracting person to account which can be applied in addition to primary responsibility of those who made the crime. When assessing which person or persons shall be responsible for a tort and to which extent they shall be responsible it is necessary to examine the requirements of a contracting person, the implementation of the contract and other relations between a contracting persons and a contractor. For the punishment, the only single individual should not be selected by administrative authorities from the persons who participated in a tort. It should be clear how the responsibility of all the persons coming into question was assessed.