, social magazine

The clerk will take off when she goes to check the boiler?

According to current legislation, the officials have to rely mainly on monitoring smoke density, by which you can determine the quality of fuels. In the future, according to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate approved an amendment to the Air Protection Act, will be able to on the spot - in the home, for example, to perform a swab from the inside of the chimney and the substances found subsequently to check whether they are used in appropriate and authorized fuels.

It appears that the new government's ability to look into the households of individuals. Until now it was only possible during the searches for purposes of criminal proceedings, which is possible only in a written reasoned statement on the judge. Is it right?

In terms of constitutional law we can say that yes, it is acceptable. Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms guarantees the inviolability of the home in its Article 12. The dwelling is not allowed to enter without the consent of the person living there. Except it was already mentioned house searches for purposes of criminal proceedings.

The Charter, however, breaks the principle of "my house - my castle" even for other cases. They must be allowed by special law, and only if, I quote from the Charter, "if it is necessary in a democratic society for the protection of human life or health, to protect the rights and freedoms of others or to avert a serious threat to public security and order." This particular law in a given case, the Clean Air Act.

Thus, comparing the value of privacy - dwellings with a value of human health and a healthy environment. Of the available studies, referred to in the explanatory memorandum to the amendment to the Air Protection Act, it is clear that incineration of unsuitable materials and especially waste, which in our country is unfortunately often has a significant negative impact on human health. While the current practice or legislation is not the appropriate instrument to prevent the burning of this. Precisely because "at home, everyone can do what he wants", or it can rely on the fact that no one comes to how it behaves at home.

Checking the burnt material would allow officials to impose a penalty where there is actually found on the ground breach of statutory duty. So yes, in terms of constitutional law and "implementation" of the law on air protection in terms of procedure necessary for the protection of people's health, rights and freedoms of others ...

On the other hand, it is necessary to consider whether this was necessary space for state repression. Whether it is appropriate that a search warrant boilers ruling bureaucracy municipalities with extended powers. Whether it is the right way to lead people to behave according to the rules.

Become their laws lay down a number of rules and obligations, not to protect the environment there are so many that the ordinary citizen is hardly able to accommodate them. Thanks officials may at least be able to act in accordance with the law. Protection of the environment, protecting human health, mutual respect, respect for life, these are the same values ​​but that would not become primarily enforce the law, they are values ​​that should be part of mainstream education.

The new proposed modification is certainly some bad solution to the situation in the air. Whether it will have the desired societal engagement, it can not answer in advance. Can about it rather doubtful. In this regard, I consider it very inspiring note of the explanatory memorandum to the amendment to the Air Protection Act, in which the Ministry of Environment stated that in analyzing the approaches of neighboring countries met with the conclusion that "the burning of poor quality fuel or waste does not occur, it would have let's inhabitants. "

And then there is only one fundamental question. Officials will take off? Police officers during the searches nezouvají. What is the deal with the officials on their way to the boiler room or living room with fireplace, only time will tell.

Author: Tereza Snopková, Department of Environmental Law PF UK.

Like FiftyFifty article:

All articles 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 on