994
edits
Case study: The Battle for Jezeří Chateau: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Case study: The Battle for Jezeří Chateau (view source)
Revision as of 21:29, 1 February 2013
, 21:29, 1 February 2013→Immediate threat of expanded mining reduced
(→The battle begins anew: Further information about Mining Act clause relating to expropriation) |
|||
| Line 259: | Line 259: | ||
Supporters of expanded brown coal mining beyond the existing limits took a major blow on 26 September 2012 when parliament agreed an amendment to the Mining Act which removed the right to expropriate private property for mining purposes. The amendment was criticised by the opposition parties in parliament: parliamentary Economic Committee chairman, Milan Urban, said the amendment could cause such large damage that it could be viewed in future as high treason, while Communist Party MP Kateřina Konečná said it could “wreck the state’s economic policy”.<ref>"Deputies remove the possibility of expropriation for mining." Aktuálně.cz, 26 September 2012. [http://aktualne.centrum.cz/domaci/zivot-v-cesku/clanek.phtml?id=758656]</ref> | Supporters of expanded brown coal mining beyond the existing limits took a major blow on 26 September 2012 when parliament agreed an amendment to the Mining Act which removed the right to expropriate private property for mining purposes. The amendment was criticised by the opposition parties in parliament: parliamentary Economic Committee chairman, Milan Urban, said the amendment could cause such large damage that it could be viewed in future as high treason, while Communist Party MP Kateřina Konečná said it could “wreck the state’s economic policy”.<ref>"Deputies remove the possibility of expropriation for mining." Aktuálně.cz, 26 September 2012. [http://aktualne.centrum.cz/domaci/zivot-v-cesku/clanek.phtml?id=758656]</ref> | ||
President | President Vaclav Klaus provided some hope to the amendment’s critics when he exercised his right to veto the law change. Klaus justified his veto by saying the amendment would deprive the country of an important energy policy tool and would facilitate land speculation. “The law abolishes the institution of expropriation. Unlike the current version of the Mining Act, it provides for a very risky and problematic conflict between landowners and the owner of this mineral wealth, which is the state,” said Klaus as part of his rationale. “One can expect that the land underneath which are deposits owned by the state and which in exceptional cases it will not be possible to expropriate , will be purchased for speculative reasons with an eye to recovering a large amount of compensation from the state.” <ref>’Klaus vetoes Mining Act. Expropriation ban would play into hands of speculators’, Lidový noviny, 19 November 2012 [http://www.lidovky.cz/klaus-vetoval-horni-zakon-ktery-rusi-moznost-vyvlastnovani-ptc-/zpravy-domov.aspx?c=A121119_160112_ln_domov_ape]</ref> | ||
Parliament, however, overturned Klaus’s veto and reconfirmed its original amendment to the Mining Act removing the expropriation clause. The amendment was supported by 120 MPs, including the government coalition, six opposition Social Democrats, all Věci veřejné (English: | Parliament, however, overturned Klaus’s veto and reconfirmed its original amendment to the Mining Act removing the expropriation clause. The amendment was supported by 120 MPs, including the government coalition, six opposition Social Democrats, all Věci veřejné (English: Public Affairs) MPs and two independent MPs. <ref>’The end of expropriation for mining. MPs overturn Klaus’s veto’, Lidový noviny, 19 November 2012 [http://www.lidovky.cz/snemovna-prehlasovala-klause-a-zrusila-vyvlastnovani-kvuli-tezbe-1d4-/zpravy-domov.aspx?c=A121219_115704_ln_domov_pef]</ref> | ||
==Resources== | ==Resources== | ||