Publicly Accessible Purpose-Built Roads: When They Arise and How to Defend Against Them
Purchasing a plot of land, registering ownership in the Cadastre of Real Estate, and properly fulfilling tax obligations usually lead an owner to believe that he alone decides how his property is used. In practice, however, it is not unusual for an owner to discover only after many years that a publicly accessible purpose-built road runs across his land — a road that, under Section 19(1) of Act No. 13/1997 Coll., on Road Communications, may be used free of charge by anyone. Such a conclusion is often the result of administrative proceedings opened many years after the underlying facts arose, without the owner ever having expressly consented to public use of his land or having received any compensation for such a restriction. How is it possible that a publicly accessible purpose-built road can arise even without a constitutive administrative decision? Under what conditions can this occur? Conversely, when can its existence not be inferred, and what remedies does an owner have against such an interference with his ownership rights?
What Is a Publicly Accessible Purpose-Built Road
A purpose-built road represents, under Section 2(2)(d) of the Act on Road Communications, the lowest category of road communications. Pursuant to Section 7(1) of this Act, it serves in particular to connect individual properties for the needs of their owners, to connect those properties with other road communications, or to enable the management of agricultural and forest land.
A key fact — and a dangerous one for owners — is that a publicly accessible purpose-built road (hereinafter "PAPR") arises directly by operation of law once its defining characteristics are simultaneously met. No constitutive decision by an administrative authority is required for its creation; a later declaratory decision establishing the legal relationship under Section 142(1) of the Administrative Procedure Code merely confirms a state of affairs that has already occurred. As the Supreme Administrative Court held in its judgment No. 5 As 314/2024-112, each characteristic must be examined independently, and the failure to meet any one of them leads to the conclusion that no PAPR exists at the given location.
Four Characteristics Required for the Creation of a PAPR
Settled case law, building in particular on the Constitutional Court's ruling of 9 January 2008, file no. II. ÚS 268/06, and further on the Supreme Administrative Court's judgments of 30 November 2015, No. 6 As 213/2015-14, and of 30 March 2017, No. 5 As 140/2014-85, has established that the existence of a PAPR requires the simultaneous fulfillment of four cumulative characteristics:
1. Existence of a Permanent and Visibly Identifiable Transport Route
The first requirement is the existence of a permanent transport route, clearly identifiable on the ground, intended for use by pedestrians or vehicles within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act on Road Communications. It must be an actually existing road with a stable course, not merely historical or incidental traces in the landscape. For this reason, so-called "hay routes" created only by repeated passage of agricultural machinery, which subsequently ceased to exist or became overgrown, generally cannot be regarded as a PAPR, nor can routes documented solely by historical map records if their existence is no longer objectively apparent on the ground.
2. Fulfillment of the Statutory Purpose of the Road
The second characteristic is the fulfillment of the purpose set out in Section 7(1) of the Act on Road Communications, namely, in particular, connecting individual properties for the needs of their owners, connecting those properties with other road communications, or ensuring access for the management of agricultural or forest land. The mere existence of a route on the ground is therefore not sufficient — it must also actually fulfill the communication function envisaged by law.
3. Owner's Consent to General Use
The third characteristic is the consent of the owner of the land on which the road is situated to its general use by the public. This requirement is not expressly enshrined in the law but was derived by settled case law as a necessary constitutional corrective for the protection of ownership rights.
4. Necessary and Irreplaceable Communication Need
The fourth characteristic is the existence of a necessary and irreplaceable communication need. The road under review must represent an indispensable connection for the specific affected properties that cannot reasonably be secured by other means. This requirement, too, does not follow directly from the text of the law but was created by the case law of the Constitutional Court as a means of protecting ownership rights against disproportionate interference.
It is precisely the third and fourth characteristics that, in practice, most often constitute the grounds on which administrative authorities or administrative courts conclude that a PAPR has not arisen. At the same time, these are the areas of objection on which owners' procedural defense is most frequently based.
No PAPR Arises Without the Owner's Consent
The existence of a publicly accessible purpose-built road constitutes a significant restriction on ownership rights. As a result of its creation, an indeterminate group of persons acquires the right to use the affected land free of charge under the regime of general use, while the owner is obliged to tolerate such use. From a constitutional-law perspective, this therefore constitutes an interference with the ownership right protected by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
Under Article 11(4) of the Charter, ownership rights may be compulsorily restricted only in the public interest, on the basis of law, and for compensation. The Constitutional Court therefore held in its ruling file no. II. ÚS 268/06 that, where any of the conditions for a constitutionally permissible restriction of ownership rights is absent, such interference constitutes a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed protection of ownership. It is precisely for these reasons that case law has concluded that the institute of a publicly accessible purpose-built road can be interpreted in a constitutionally conforming manner only where the owner has consented to the general use of his land.
Consent may be given in two ways:
- expressly – the owner unambiguously expresses his intention to dedicate the road to general use, for example through a declaration or other unequivocal legal act; or
- by implication – inferred from the owner's conduct, typically in cases where, at the time the land began to actually function as a road, the owner took no action against its public use and tolerated it over the long term without any qualified objection.
What matters above all is the owner's actual will. The Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment of 30 September 2009, No. 5 As 27/2009-66, held that for implied consent to arise, it suffices that the owner tolerates the use of his land as a road. Conversely, objection must be expressed through active conduct that clearly demonstrates the owner's disagreement with general use.
A further interpretive rule formulated by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 November 2011, No. 9 As 55/2011-141, is of exceptional significance for landowners. The court emphasized there that, in each individual case, administrative authorities must carefully assess whether consent was actually given, and that in cases of doubt the matter must be decided in favor of the owner.
The same judgment distinguishes between two situations:
- If the road was built by the owner himself, or with his demonstrable consent, for the purpose of public use, the regime of general use is triggered, and it is generally no longer necessary to examine the existence of a necessary communication need. By his own conduct, the owner has effectively "dedicated" the road to the public.
- A completely different situation arises where the existence of the road runs counter to the owner's will. In such a case, a declaration of the existence of a PAPR constitutes a compulsory restriction of ownership rights that must withstand a constitutionality test under Article 11(4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Administrative authorities therefore cannot presume the existence of consent but must reliably prove it.
When the Owner's Consent Cannot Be Inferred
Administrative practice repeatedly shows several typical situations in which an owner's consent to general use cannot be inferred:
Historical Development of the Land
Where a building or other structure previously stood on a site, the land could not, by its very nature, have simultaneously functioned as a publicly accessible road. If, after the structure was removed, a paved area was created for use solely by a specific owner or a defined group of persons, the existence of a historical tradition of general use, or the owner's consent to such a regime, cannot be inferred without further evidence. This circumstance may constitute a significant argument against the claim that the road arose as a publicly accessible purpose-built road.
Traffic Signage as an Expression of Qualified Objection
Another situation arises where the owner actively restricts entry to or driving onto his land by means of traffic signs. The placement of a "No Entry" sign, possibly supplemented by an additional plate permitting entry only to a defined group of persons, generally constitutes a clear expression of qualified objection to general use of the road. The Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment No. 1 As 76/2009-60, expressly stated that knowing violation of the no-entry restriction by third parties cannot, in itself, give rise to the owner's implied consent. In other words, the fact that the public does not respect the prohibition does not mean that the owner consents to the use of his land. If an administrative authority concludes that even the placement of a prohibition sign does not constitute a qualified objection by the owner, it is obliged to provide a convincing and detailed justification for that conclusion. A mere statement that the prohibition was insufficient will not suffice.
Existence of a Lease or Other Private-Law Agreement
Where an owner has entered into a paid lease agreement for use of the route, he thereby clearly indicates that he does not regard the access as a public entitlement available to an indeterminate group of persons, but as a private-law relationship based on contractual consent and corresponding consideration. If the owner had genuinely intended to dedicate the road to public use, entering into lease agreements and demanding rent would make no economic or legal sense whatsoever. The Supreme Administrative Court addressed this question as well in its judgment No. 1 As 76/2009-60, concluding that the existence of a contractual regime generally indicates the absence of any intention on the owner's part to dedicate the road to general public use. It is also significant that a qualified objection, once expressed by the owner and not subsequently withdrawn or altered, is binding on his legal successor as well. A mere change of ownership therefore does not revive the possibility of inferring implied consent to public use.
An objection, once qualifiedly expressed and not withdrawn, binds the legal successor of the original owner as well.
Necessary and Irreplaceable Communication Need
Even the existence of the owner's consent alone is not sufficient to conclude that a publicly accessible purpose-built road has arisen on private land. Equally essential is fulfillment of the fourth defining characteristic, namely the existence of a necessary and irreplaceable communication need. The purpose of this criterion is to prevent ownership rights from being restricted where the intended purpose can be achieved by other, less invasive means. The assessment of necessary communication need therefore represents a practical application of the constitutional principle of proportionality in the conflict between the public interest and the protection of ownership.
The Constitutional Court, in its ruling file no. II. ÚS 268/06, clearly held that where other means exist to secure a communication connection between properties without the need to interfere with another person's ownership right, preference must be given to those alternatives. Restricting ownership rights through the institute of a publicly accessible purpose-built road therefore represents an extreme solution, not a means of increasing users' convenience. The Supreme Administrative Court has repeatedly adopted the same conclusion, for example in its judgments No. 9 As 147/2013-48 and No. 7 As 68/2014-87, according to which a necessary communication need cannot be inferred if another communication alternative exists that can reasonably be considered. In other words, an administrative authority is not entitled to examine whether the disputed route is the most convenient or fastest solution. Its task is to assess whether, without this route, the affected properties could not be adequately served from a transport perspective.
In practice, a frequent error is to assess the existence of communication need from the perspective of the public at large, or in terms of the overall traffic situation in the locality. Such an approach, however, does not accord with settled case law. The Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment No. 6 As 213/2015-14, emphasized that the necessary communication need is assessed not in relation to the public as a whole, but exclusively in relation to the specific properties for which the disputed route is to serve as a necessary transport connection. The subject of the evidentiary inquiry is therefore not whether the public would appreciate use of the road, or whether transport in the given area would be more convenient. What matters solely is whether the specific affected properties have another genuinely usable means of access. If such a possibility exists — even if it is not optimal for its users — the fourth defining characteristic will generally not be met.
What May Be Considered a Comparable Communication Alternative
At the same time, case law also protects the legitimate interests of owners of the affected properties. It cannot automatically be inferred that a necessary communication need is absent merely because another route exists in the wider vicinity. The Supreme Administrative Court has repeatedly emphasized that a conclusion regarding the existence of an alternative access route cannot be based on the mere geographical existence of another road communication. The road administration authority must always individually assess whether the alternative route genuinely provides a fully adequate communication connection. In its judgment of 16 March 2010, No. 5 As 3/2009-76, and subsequently also in its decisions No. 9 As 36/2022 and No. 10 As 99/2022, the Supreme Administrative Court held that, in particular, the following must be assessed:
- whether the alternative route is passable on a long-term basis,
- whether it is maintained,
- whether it is usable even under adverse weather conditions or in winter,
- whether it permits traffic appropriate to the purpose of the affected properties, and
- whether it provides a connection of a qualitatively comparable standard.
This does not mean, however, that the alternative must be entirely identical or equally comfortable. Case law expressly allows that another access route may be longer, less convenient, or more demanding to organize. What matters is whether it still represents a reasonable and functional solution for transport access.
On the other hand, case law clearly rejects the use of the institute of a publicly accessible purpose-built road merely to increase user convenience. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 16 May 2013, file no. 22 Cdo 2178/2012, held that where a person using the disputed route has access to another route — even a less convenient one, but still adequate — a pressing communication need cannot be inferred. In such circumstances, no right of general use of the purpose-built road arises either. This conclusion is of fundamental practical importance. Many disputes are not, in fact, about whether access exists, but about whether a more convenient access exists.
It is precisely here that necessity and convenience must be strictly distinguished. A publicly accessible purpose-built road does not serve to provide users with the most advantageous route, but only to ensure a necessary transport connection where no other reasonable solution objectively exists.
Typical alternatives that may exclude a necessary communication need include an existing passage through a building, the provision of transport access from a pedestrian zone (where, under Annex 6 to Decree No. 294/2015 Coll., the definition of "transport access" includes, among others, supply vehicles, maintenance vehicles, vehicles of residents, or vehicles transporting a severely disabled person), or available public parking areas within walking distance. The assessment of these circumstances must always be individualized and based on specific factual findings. The mere fact that one option is more convenient or economically advantageous for users cannot, in itself, justify restricting another person's ownership right.
Absence of General Use and of the Public Interest
In addition to the four defining characteristics of a publicly accessible purpose-built road, settled case law emphasizes a further significant aspect that is often overlooked in administrative practice, namely the existence of a genuine public interest in the general use of the road. The institute of a publicly accessible purpose-built road is not a means of resolving private neighbor disputes, nor a tool for ensuring more convenient access for individual owners to their properties. Its purpose is to enable general use of the road by the public, that is, by a predetermined indeterminate group of persons entitled to use the road free of charge in accordance with the Act on Road Communications. It is precisely this public-law character that distinguishes a publicly accessible purpose-built road from private-law institutes governing access across another person's land.
If, in fact, a route is actually used only by a limited circle of owners of several neighboring properties or their visitors, this generally does not constitute general use by the public, but rather the satisfaction of individual private interests. Such a situation does not, in itself, constitute grounds for restricting another owner's ownership right by means of a public-law institute. The Supreme Administrative Court addressed this distinction, among other places, in its judgment No. 7 As 85/2023-82, in which it emphasized the difference between general public use of a road and a private-law need to secure access to specific properties. In the latter case, the legal order provides the owner with the necessary tools, in particular through the institute of acquisitive prescription or the establishment of an easement of way under Section 1276 et seq. of the Civil Code. It cannot therefore be permitted for the institute of a publicly accessible purpose-built road to be used as a simpler or more economically advantageous alternative to a private-law solution.
The same constitutional-law emphasis follows already from the Constitutional Court's ruling file no. II. ÚS 268/06, according to which it is not permissible to restrict ownership rights through the institute of a publicly accessible purpose-built road where a genuine public interest is absent. If the actual aim is merely to secure more convenient or cheaper access for neighbors to their properties, this constitutes protection of their individual property interests, not a public interest capable of justifying interference with another person's ownership right. In other words, the public interest cannot be conflated with the private benefit of a few individuals. Such an interpretation would be contrary to Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as well as to the consistent case law of the Constitutional Court.
How to Defend Against the Creation or Declaration of a Publicly Accessible Purpose-Built Road
Several fundamental lines of defense that may be essential for a landowner can be derived from the existing case law of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. It must be emphasized, however, that their significance always depends on the specific factual circumstances of each individual case and cannot be understood as a universal guide applicable to all situations.
1. Active and Demonstrable Expression of Objection
The greatest risk for an owner is usually long-term passive tolerance of use of the land by the public. Such conduct may, under certain circumstances, be assessed as implied consent to general use. Conversely, an active and clearly demonstrable objection represents a significant argument against the conclusion that a publicly accessible purpose-built road has arisen.
Expressions of qualified objection may include, for example:
- placement of traffic signs prohibiting entry,
- supplementing a prohibition sign with an additional plate defining the circle of authorized persons,
- repeatedly removing unauthorized persons,
- summoning the Police of the Czech Republic in cases of unauthorized use,
- installing a barrier, gate, or other technical measure restricting access.
At the same time, it should be recalled that case law rejects a formalistic approach by administrative authorities that would link the existence of objection exclusively to the physical closure of the road. The Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment No. 7 As 85/2023-82, expressly noted that the mere placement of a prohibition traffic sign may constitute a sufficient expression of the owner's qualified objection.
2. Contractual Arrangement Instead of Public-Law Declaration
If neighbors need access across a piece of land, it is generally preferable, from the owner's perspective, to resolve the matter under private law. Entering into a lease agreement or an agreement establishing an easement for appropriate consideration clearly demonstrates that the owner does not regard the use of his land as public, but as a relationship founded on contractual consent. The existence of such an agreement constitutes significant evidence against the conclusion that the owner intended to dedicate the road to general use. This argument carries particular weight where the rent or other consideration has actually been paid over the long term and the contractual relationship has been respected by both parties.
3. Proving the Existence of an Alternative Access
One of the most effective forms of defense is to challenge the existence of a necessary communication need. An owner should therefore actively demonstrate that the affected properties have another means of transport connection available, for example through a historical passage, another public road, the possibility of transport access from a pedestrian zone, or public parking areas within a reasonable walking distance. A mere assertion, however, is not sufficient. Specific evidentiary materials are of key importance, in particular photographic documentation, map records, statements of the relevant administrative authorities, or evidence of actual long-term use of the alternative route.
4. Evidence of Historical Development and the Nature of the Land
A significant argument may also be the fact that the land was historically developed or served a purpose other than transport. If a building historically stood on it, it can only with difficulty be inferred that it simultaneously functioned as a publicly accessible road. The Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment No. 7 As 85/2023-82, expressly recalled that land which was historically built upon did not serve, and could not have served, as a publicly accessible purpose-built road. Such a factual circumstance may significantly weaken a claim regarding the historical existence of a road.
5. Consistent Application of the Rule of Deciding in Favor of the Owner in Cases of Doubt
The case law of the Supreme Administrative Court repeatedly emphasizes that, in cases of doubt, the matter must be decided in favor of the landowner. This principle, formulated in particular in judgment No. 9 As 55/2011-141, represents a significant interpretive corrective in protecting the constitutionally guaranteed ownership right. An administrative authority therefore cannot rely on assumptions or probability. It must reliably prove the fulfillment of all defining characteristics of a publicly accessible purpose-built road. If any one of them is not established with certainty, the existence of a PAPR cannot be declared. The burden of proof in this regard does not rest on the owner, but on the party asserting the existence of the publicly accessible purpose-built road, and on the administrative authority deciding the matter.
Procedural Defense Does Not End with the Issuance of the First-Instance Administrative Decision
An appeal may be filed against a decision of the road administration authority, and an action may subsequently be brought against a final decision of the regional authority under Section 65 et seq. of the Code of Administrative Justice. Once these remedies have been exhausted, a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court is also available. An important procedural guarantee is also the principle set out in Section 78(5) of the Code of Administrative Justice, according to which administrative authorities and courts are bound by the legal opinion expressed in a previous decision, provided there has been no change in the facts or the legal framework. As the Supreme Administrative Court noted in its judgment of 20 May 2024, No. 9 As 66/2023-72, any departure from a previously expressed binding legal opinion must be duly justified and cannot be the result of a mere change in evaluative reasoning.
Conclusion
The institute of a publicly accessible purpose-built road represents a significant restriction on ownership rights, arising directly by operation of law once all of the statutory and case-law-derived defining characteristics are simultaneously fulfilled, without the need for a constitutive decision by an administrative authority. It is precisely for this reason that the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court consistently emphasize that the existence of a publicly accessible purpose-built road cannot be inferred through extensive interpretation, nor merely from the factual existence of a route. Each of its characteristics must be proven independently, and the absence of even a single one precludes a conclusion that it exists.
In practice, the most frequently disputed issues are the owner's consent to general use and the existence of a necessary and irreplaceable communication need, which represent key constitutional safeguards for the protection of ownership rights. Case law also repeatedly emphasizes that, in cases of doubt, the matter must be decided in favor of the owner, and that a publicly accessible purpose-built road must not serve as a means of resolving private neighbor disputes or of securing more convenient access where a reasonable alternative exists. Its existence must therefore be the exception, not the rule.
For more information, please contact us at:
ECOVIS ježek, attorneys at law s.r.o.
Betlémské nám. 6
110 00 Prague 1
e-mail: mojmir.jezek@ecovislegal.cz
www.ecovislegal.cz
About ECOVIS ježek, attorneys at law s.r.o.
The Czech law firm ECOVIS ježek focuses in its practice primarily on corporate law, real estate law, dispute resolution, as well as financing and banking law, and provides comprehensive advisory services in all areas, forming an alternative to international law firm clients. The international dimension of the services provided is ensured by the firm's existing experience and through cooperation with leading law firms in most European countries, the USA, and other jurisdictions within the ECOVIS network, operating in 75 countries worldwide. Members of the ECOVIS ježek law firm team have many years of experience from leading international law and tax firms, providing legal advice to multinational corporations, large Czech companies, as well as medium-sized firms and individual clients. More information at www.ecovislegal.cz.
