The following is a description of the process of obstruction of the obtaining of a building permit for the investor, where the consenting authority authorised by the Municipality of Krško (Kostak d.d.) is delaying the process of obtaining the building permit in every possible way in order to prevent the implementation of this investment. The investor wishes to build an agricultural building on his plot of land for the purpose of carrying out vegetable-growing activities, which is permissible under the legislation currently in force. The investor started the process of obtaining a building permit a year ago, firstly by making enquiries as to whether construction in the area was permissible and feasible. In July 2014, after obtaining assurances from the competent authorities (the Mayor) that there were no obstacles to the project, the investor commissioned the preparation of project documentation for obtaining a building permit. On the basis of the documentation, the investor obtained all the necessary project conditions and the necessary consents (Elektro, Telekom, ARSO, DRSC (DRSI), Public Agency for Civil Aviation), with the exception of the consenting authority Kostak d.d., which, under the authority of the municipality, is responsible for the road, the sewerage system, the water supply system, the SCEP and waste management. The basis for obtaining the project conditions was an IDZ, which dealt with the phased implementation of the project. However, a PGD was prepared, which addressed Phase I of the project implementation and sent for consent. Despite the fact that the PGD was aligned with the IDZ, the consenting authority rejected the application on the grounds that it differed from the IDZ (the difference being that only Phase I of the project was subject to planning permission) and that this necessitated the need to obtain new planning conditions. Despite the unjustified nature of the request, it was granted and a new application for planning conditions or consent was sent, which dealt only with Phase I. The consenting authority responded to the application with a decision refusing consent. A new obstacle has arisen, stemming from the Expertise basis for the preparation of the Water Body Protection Act for the pumping stations, which is not even in the process of being adopted, let alone adopted. The decision was appealed to the first instance authority (the consenting authority) on the grounds that the consenting authority had no legal basis to issue such a condition. The appeal was referred to the second instance body (the Mayor). Since the appeal was found to be well-founded by the second appellate body, it referred the appeal back to the first appellate body for a decision. New project conditions were issued, which, in addition to the other (technical) conditions issued the first time, also required the regulation of the boundary between the investor's plots and the public road (and no further reference was made to water protection areas). The project is designed to take account of all the established setbacks from the public road or roadway, as required by Article 43 of the Ordinance on Municipal Public Roads and Other Public Areas, while the regulation of the boundary itself is the subject of a different procedure and is not directly related to obtaining a building permit. As the decision on the boundary was not delivered to the consenting authority, the latter refused the application for consent. The investor appealed to the first instance authority, which waited until the last day of the prescribed period to refer the appeal to the second instance authority. The appeal is now pending before the appellate body (the Mayor). All of the above demonstrates the blatant arbitrariness of the public authority, which itself arbitrates whether or not the investor will be allowed to build, irrespective of the rules in force. We appeal to the competent authorities (Ministry of Public Administration, Government of the Republic of Slovenia) to urge this consenting authority and the municipality, which in its project conditions does not indicate the legal bases required by law, but invents new conditions of its own, which have no legal basis, and thus hinders the implementation of the investment and warns it of the illegality of its actions. Annex: - Complaint
This is not an isolated case, as it is often the case that in practice, consenting authorities impose conditions for which they have no legal basis, thus hindering the investor in terms of time and costs, while administrative units only look at whether consent has been obtained, but do not see their substantive role in the procedure. It would therefore make sense to provide in the new legislation that administrative units can check whether project conditions have a proper legal basis and, if they do not, that they are annulled.
COMMENT from the Ministry of Public Administration: It is clear from the complaint (request for supervision) that the company has already referred the matter to the Inspectorate for the Public Sector (IJS). In this respect, we would like to draw attention to the following (which also follows from point 6 of the Terms of Use of the Poslovnisos.gov.si) that in our work we do not interfere in the supervision of work carried out by other bodies, we are not an appeal body (we do not have the power to amend or repeal administrative acts), we cannot impose criminal sanctions or repeal administrative acts. The purpose of the BusinessSOS project is not to influence the substantive decisions of the authorities as such, for which the parties have appropriate legal remedies. We have therefore referred the matter to the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning (MoESP) (as the line ministry for the subject area) for a response on the issues raised and with a call for the preparation of appropriate guidance for consenting authorities or holders of public powers (under Article 49 of the current Act on the Construction of Buildings). The views of the MoESP and the findings of the IJS will be published on this website once they are available.