The true test of the Prague Metropolitan Plan's quality will take place in the courtroom

The new master plan for the city of Brno, effective from 2025, was in development for many years with the ambition of creating a modern planning tool that meets the city's current needs. 

Shortly after it came into effect, it became clear that the real test of its quality would come in court—and that judicial review of a master plan can lead to the annulment of parts of the plan. For the Prague Metropolitan Plan—effective from September 1, 2026—this means only one thing: its final form will likely be shaped in the courtroom, as the deadlines for filing lawsuits to challenge parts of the plan will begin in September.

Judicial review of a master plan in practice: 6 key takeaways from an attorney's perspective

Attorney Jana Holcnerová has analyzed the existing case law regarding the Brno master plan and identified recurring patterns—the most common procedural errors, arguments that fail in court, and the situations where courts decide to annul provisions. These trends will directly influence future court rulings on the Prague Metropolitan Plan. We present an overview of the most essential ones. 

1. Restrictions on property rights through a master plan must be proportionate

The court emphasized that any interference with property rights must be strictly necessary, and achieved in the least intrusive way possible to reach the intended goal. It isnot enough for a regulation to pursue a legitimate objective – it must also be proportionate and respectful of property owners' rights.

"The court's task when reviewing an interference with the petitioner's rights is to determine whether the zoning plan authority acted in an obviously arbitrary or discriminatory manner, whether the tasks and objectives pursued through the zoning plan are legitimate and lawful, and whether any restriction of property rights is limited to the strictly necessary extent, reasonably leads to the intended goal, and is carried out in the least intrusive manner possible."

"Regarding proportionality, there is no doubt that a zoning plan, by designating areas with different methods of use, interferes with the petitioner's property rights. Such interference must have a legitimate reason based on lawful objectives, be carried out to the strictly necessary extent, be the least intrusive method that still reasonably leads to the intended goal, and must not be discriminatory." 

For Prague, this means that every restriction—even if "only for the future"—must be precisely justified, including an explanation of why a less restrictive solution was not chosen.

- Judgment of the Regional Court in Brno dated March 12, 2026, file no. 67 A 14/2025-425

2. Public space on private land must be properly justified

One of the most frequent reasons for court intervention has been the designation of public spaces on private land without sufficient justification.

The courts have established a clear rule:

"The Regional Court holds that the aforementioned framework sets out the basic directives for locating areas for public space. 

In the first instance, these should be municipal lands primarily intended for such use, and if not, it is necessary to justify the need , or alternatively the necessity, of locating a public space area on land owned by a private individual. 

This can be served by a site card or an additionally prepared zoning study as a spatial planning document. In other cases, the need to locate public space on private land must be at least "evident." 

This fundamentally limits the municipality's ability to interfere with private property without very strong justification. 

"In the context of the Metropolitan Plan, it is to be expected that this very area will be among the most frequently challenged," estimates attorney Jana Holcnerová.

- Judgment of the Regional Court in Brno dated May 7, 2025, file no. 73 A 2/2025-84

3. Without specific justification, the plan will not hold up in court

Courts do not primarily assess whether a chosen regulation is "ideal," but whether it is explained clearly and specifically enough. This applies both to the spatial plan itself, and especially to the handling of individual owners' objections.

The municipality must respond to the owner's specific arguments, rather than just describing the regulation in general terms. 

The court's decision indicates that if a petitioner raises specific objections to a regulationthat may directly and immediately affect their property rights—and substantively specifies such an impact—the authority must address the potential consequences during the adoption phase. 

And if the authority fails to address the objections of the petitioner—or any other owner of land affected by the spatial plan—and does not properly justify the contested measure of a general nature, it cannot retroactively remedy this deficiency through its statement in court proceedings.

For the Metropolitan Plan, this means only one thing: the more general the regulation in the Metropolitan Plan, the higher the demands will be for its individualization regarding specific plots of land.

– Derived from the judgment of the Regional Court in Brno dated March 11, 2026, file no. 67 A 1/2026-160

4. Courts do not accept the "it was like this before" argument

A reference to previous spatial planning documentation does not, in itself, justify why the proposed regulation holds up in terms of legality and proportionality. A new spatial plan must stand on its own and reflect the current situation in the area.

Case law indicates that a reference to previous spatial planning documentation cannot, in itself, justify why the proposed regulation holds up in terms of the requirements of legality, legitimacy, and proportionality, especially regarding the balance between private and public interests. The purpose of issuing a new spatial plan is to reassess the municipality's urban concept and land-use needs based on current conditions. 

Although continuity must be respected as a principle of spatial planning, the creation of a new spatial plan involves a revision of the existing state (which the requirement of continuity must not prevent).

This has a fundamental impact on the Metropolitan Plan: every restriction must be justified anew and based on current circumstances, rather than simply carried over.

- Derived from the Supreme Administrative Court judgment of September 16, 2025, file no. 1 As 119/2025-28

5. "Lofty goals" are not enough – regulations must be specific

In Brno, courts have repeatedly rejected justifications based on general formulations regarding public interest, landscape protection, or urban values. If they were not specified for the given location, they did not hold up.

Courts have repeatedly rejected justifications based on general formulations regarding public interest, landscape protection, or urban values, unless they are specified for a particular location.

“In addressing the complainants' objections regarding the need (purpose) to include their specific plots in the landscape greenery area, the respondent presents a series of very general reasons. These are formulated in quite a "lofty" manner, yet at the same time very vaguely and non-specifically.      

The respondent mentions, in particular, an interest in the permanent existence of organisms from the animal and plant kingdoms; the uniqueness of the landscape and natural environment of the given location which belongs to the most significant values of the city of Brno, the unrepeatable atmosphere of the city's image; and the extraordinary natural, cultural, and landscape-forming values created by the typical spatial and species arrangement of the biota. 

However, these proclamations are not specifically tailored to the conditions of the location in question, let alone supported by any justification. No specific species of biota that would require protection in this particular area is mentioned.”

“The court concludes that the justification for the regulation of area Z.139 by reference to the Territorial System of Ecological Stability (ÚSES) plan is also not reviewable. It does not state specific, individualized reasons for the designation of the LBC.LI04 biocenter; furthermore, there are contradictions between the assumptions stated in the ÚSES plan, the character of the affected plots, and the respondent's approach to integrated phenomena, which are not explained in any way.”

“This provides a clear lesson: the Metropolitan Plan cannot stand as an abstract urban concept – it must be able to explain the specific impacts on specific areas,” explains attorney Holcnerová.

- Judgment of the Regional Court in Brno dated February 25, 2026, file no. 73 A 9/2025-177

6. Courts do not interfere with the concept of a spatial plan — but they do correct excesses

It is also important to remember that courts respect the right of municipalities to decide on the development of their territory and do not intervene in the concept itself, provided it stays within legal boundaries.

As case law repeatedly emphasizes:

“… pWhen assessing the legality of spatial planning documentation, the court adheres to the principle of judicial restraint (cf. judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 12 November 2013, file no. 2 Aos 3/2013-36). … It is precisely the municipality that must attempt to balance the interests of the affected landowners with the public interest, which, in the broadest sense, is the interest in the harmonious use of the territory.     

"In relation to this locality, this court emphasizes … that  it is generally not the court's role to determine how a specific area should be used; its task is to monitor whether the relevant political entity (the municipality) has not exceeded certain substantive (urban, ecological, economic, and other) boundaries set by the legal rules of spatial planning. 

If that is the case, any variant of land use that "fits" within these boundaries of spatial planningis acceptable, and the court is not authorized to impose a different variant on the political entity. 

The court protects individuals (and, indirectly, the entire political community) against excesses in spatial planning, but it is not its task to create spatial plans itself."

However, it will intervene the moment the regulation is unjustified, disproportionate, or the result of arbitrary procedure.

- Judgment of the Regional Court in Brno of 12 March 2026, file no. 67 A 14/2025-425

Prague Metropolitan Plan and how to defend against it

Defense against a spatial plan is relatively well-established in Czech law, but it relies on adhering to quite strict time limits. The basic deadline is simple: a motion to annul a spatial plan or a part thereof must be filed within one year of its entry into force (the Metropolitan Plan enters into force on 1 September 2026). Once this period has elapsed, judicial protection against the plan itself generally ceases to exist.

How to write a lawsuit against a spatial plan that will hold up (you have 1 year from 1 September 2026)

Filing a motion is not just about disagreeing with the zoning plan, but about the ability to convincingly describe the specific impact of the regulation on the property in question. It is therefore crucial to have a clear overview of how the situation has changed—for example, a reclassification from a buildable area to non-buildable land or the introduction of restrictions that significantly narrow the possibilities for use. 

“A comparison with the previous state plays a major role, whether it concerns an older zoning plan, issued permits, or the actual use of the land. This is precisely what demonstrates the intensity of the interference with property rights. It is equally important to articulate why this interference is disproportionate,” adds attorney Jana Holcnerová.

Expert documentation plays a key role in defending against a zoning plan

From a practical standpoint, it also proves very beneficial to have expert documentation, such as urban planning or economic assessments, which can concretize the impacts of the regulation. If the owner submitted objections during the plan's preparation, these documents become key evidence.

Judicial review of a zoning plan

Overall, a relatively simple but important rule applies: even if a zoning plan has already been issued, a successful lawsuit does not rely on general disagreement, but on the quality and specificity of the argumentation. 

Court proceedings are not a space for searching for a problem, but for its precise legal definition. In practice, what matters most is whether the plaintiff is able to clearly show how the regulation affects their specific property, why the interference is disproportionate, and why the municipality failed to justify it sufficiently.

In other words, even in the phase after a plan is issued, it remains true that the court does not “rewrite” the zoning plan, but assesses whether it holds up in terms of legality – and it is precisely this test that a lawsuit must be precisely focused on.

We would also like to remind you that the 2026 amendment to the Building Act brings changes to deadlines and processes that may affect your situation.

We will assess how the Metropolitan Plan affects your land

If the Metropolitan Plan affects you, it is advisable to have it reviewed through an individual legal assessment. Every case has its own specifics, and the details are often decisive—the concrete impacts on a given plot of land, the way they are justified, and the process of the plan's adoption.

1. We will review how the new regulations affect your property.
2. We will assess whether there are grounds for a potential defense.
3. We will propose the next steps.

We will assess your case and advise you on how to proceed. Schedule a consultation.

ARTICLE AUTHOR – Mgr. Jana Holcnerová, Attorney at Law

Jana specializes in construction law and real estate law. Thanks to the experience she has gained both in private practice and as an in-house lawyer for a development company, she guides clients through the entire process, from zoning and planning to project permitting, construction, and final sale.

Your story deserves attention. Treat yourself to an attorney who will give it to you.

Our clients come to us with visions—to build a residential complex, convert a building into offices, or purchase a home for their family. We help them find a way to achieve them. Legally secure and efficient. Do you have a vision we can help you realize? Get in touch with us.