The Supreme Court confirmed – building permits cannot be issued in accordance with ECUL-schemes*
The Supreme Court condemned using ECUL-schemes as well as pointed out the need to stick to comprehensive plans. It is an important decision which once again confirms that the neighbours interests must also be taken into account i.a in a construction.
The main question of the dispute that reached out to the Supreme Court was that were the permits that had been issued equivalent to zoning plan and what has to be followed while zoning plans and comprehensive plans are contradictory. The parties also had a dispute over a question that while connecting two separately standing buildings together with a gallery, does it make it a one building in the meaning of the Building Code. On the proceeding the developer and municipality continuously found that while giving out a building permit the planned construction activity must be checked and evaluated purely according to the zoning plan. The applicants found that while giving out a building permit, good construction practice must be taken into consideration in addition to zoning plan.
The Supreme Court condemned the usage of ECUL-schemes and underlined that in a situation where a building has been seemingly constructed as one but in essence it was meant to be constructed as two the output is not allowed when the purpose of that kind of a solution was to bypass the regulation that limits the number for buildings.
Secondly, the Supreme Court pointed out that the required load index set on the comprehensive plan must be followed.
Load ratings give the applicants a subjective right that too many apartment buildings would not be built near their houses. In a situation where zoning plan in some questions is neutral then the comprehensive plan must be followed.
On these reasons mentioned above the Supreme Court satisfied the appeal in cassation and cancelled the building permit given out by the municipality.
*Everything is correct under the law scheme