A Czech municipality cannot impose a blanket ban on solar power plants without strong reasons

You want to build a solar power plant on your own land, but the municipality bans it across the board in its zoning plan — citing only general phrases about landscape protection? That is exactly the scenario that played out in the municipality of Leština u Světlé, and its legal aftermath was dealt with by the Czech Supreme Administrative Court in decision file no. 8 As 146/2025-66.

SV ENERGO a. s. owned land in the cadastral area of Leština u Světlé on which it planned to build a photovoltaic power plant (solar farm) with an installed capacity of over 1 MW. In the zoning plan, the land was classified as an area for light industry, where production halls up to six metres high could be built. However, in 2024 the municipality adopted a new zoning plan containing a categorical regulation: the location of large-scale photovoltaic power plants, wind power plants and biogas stations is inadmissible throughout the municipality. For light industry areas, the zoning plan then provided that solar plants are conditionally permissible only if they are "existing facilities" — i.e. in effect only those that already exist.

For the investor this meant only one thing: its project was dead, without anyone examining the specific impact of the construction on the landscape or agricultural land. The company therefore challenged the zoning plan before the Regional Court in Hradec Králové.

What the courts said: an absolute ban requires exceptional justification

The Regional Court largely upheld the petitioner's claim. It relied on the settled case law of the Supreme Administrative Court, according to which a zoning plan cannot categorically prevent a lawful type of economic activity that is commonly permitted elsewhere, unless there are specific reasons arising from the particular conditions of the area. The Regional Court noted that, in dealing with the investor's objections, the municipality referred only to the general need to protect agricultural land and the character of the landscape. It did not, however, give any specific reasons why this particular area required such strict protection that solar plants had to be banned entirely. The Regional Court also noticed an internal contradiction: in the same area where the municipality does not allow even solar panels about three metres high, it permits industrial halls six metres high.

The municipality filed a cassation complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. It argued in particular that its right to self-government had been infringed, claimed that the Regional Court had in effect "rewritten" the regulations and created new regulation of the area, and pointed out that the reasoning of the zoning plan had been sufficient.

The Supreme Administrative Court rejected most of the municipality's objections as unfounded. It confirmed the Regional Court's key conclusion: if a municipality introduces an absolute, blanket ban on a certain lawful economic activity — moreover, an activity that the legislature expressly supports as public technical infrastructure established in the public interest (under the so-called lex OZE on renewable energy sources) — it must convincingly justify in the zoning plan what makes the conditions in the area unique and why the level of protection of competing interests set by law is insufficient. A mere general reference to the protection of agricultural land and landscape character is not enough. The court also rejected the municipality's argument that the reasons for the regulation could be "added" in the cassation complaint — the lawfulness of a measure of a general nature is assessed solely on the basis of its own reasoning.

The Supreme Administrative Court also rejected the municipality's claim that the Regional Court had exceeded its powers and created "new regulation". Annulling an unlawful part of a zoning plan is the court's standard cassation power. That the area is left without regulation after annulment is a logical consequence, not judicial activism. The court described the municipality's fears that, once the regulation was annulled, solar plants could be built "anywhere without restriction" as exaggerated — every large-scale solar plant must go through a demanding permitting process, including assessment by the regional building authority and a licence from the Energy Regulatory Office.

Where the Supreme Administrative Court corrected the Regional Court: the scope of annulment must match the scope of the interference

On one important point, however, the Supreme Administrative Court found fault with the Regional Court. The Regional Court annulled the disputed regulation in relation to the entire municipality, although the petitioner claimed interference with its rights only in relation to its specific land and specific project. The Supreme Administrative Court stressed a fundamental rule: the scope of annulment of a measure of a general nature must correspond to the scope of the alleged and proven interference with the petitioner's rights. If a petitioner challenges a general regulation but its arguments concern only its own land, the court should annul the regulation only in relation to that land.

The Supreme Administrative Court therefore quashed the Regional Court's judgment and decided the case itself — it annulled the contested parts of the zoning plan, but only in relation to land plot no. 133/4, corresponding to area Z.I9. Otherwise, it rejected the petition for lack of the petitioner's standing.

This case offers several key lessons for businesses and investors in renewable energy in the Czech Republic:

• A municipality cannot impose a blanket ban on a lawful economic activity without specific reasons — especially one that the legislature expressly supports as being in the public interest.
• General phrases about landscape protection are not enough. The zoning plan must contain convincing reasoning as to why the particular area requires a higher level of protection than the law provides.
• Investors can defend themselves effectively — but they must raise their objections already during the adoption of the zoning plan and then pursue them consistently.
• The scope of judicial protection matches the scope of the alleged interference — if you want a broader annulment of a regulation, you must allege and prove a broader impact on your rights.

For developers and investors in solar projects, the Supreme Administrative Court's decision is a clear signal: municipal self-government is not unlimited and must not serve as a cover for unjustified blocking of investments supported by law. At the same time, a municipality may introduce strict regulation — if it justifies it properly and specifically. The key lies in the quality of the reasoning, not the strength of political will.

Source: Czech Supreme Administrative Court, 8 As 146/2025-66, judgment of 31 March 2026.