In the light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, an association may raise objections in support of the action if they correspond to the subject of its activities. It is thus not entitled to invoke such illegality that is not directly related to environmental protection or other interests for the promotion of which the association was established.

In the cited decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, this approach resulted in the impossibility of the environmental association to claim substantive standing in the matter of traffic safety, as traffic safety did not fall within the scope of its activities in accordance with the statutes. On the other hand, the Supreme Administrative Court granted the individuals appearing in the same case within the framework of substantive standing, as they proved more than hypothetical that they were affected by the new road construction and were not limited by participation in an association whose focus would not correspond to this concern.

In addition to the outlined substantive standing of associations as the public concerned, there is also the standing of associations as representatives of their members. It follows from the case law of the Constitutional Court that an association may enforce the protection of the rights of its members in court proceedings, but only within the scope of the subject of the association’s activities. This jurisprudential view then prevents the association from defending the rights of third parties who are not its members, even though their rights could also be violated. However, this does not mean that the protection of the public interest as such is completely impossible. Affected persons may defend themselves against its infringement if it is related to their public subjective rights, which may indirectly provide protection to third parties.

It is also important to distinguish between the participation of associations in administrative and judicial proceedings. Legal standing is not strictly tied to participation in administrative proceedings, which means that persons who were not parties to administrative proceedings can also claim protection of their public subjective rights. Similarly, the scope of substantive standing before an administrative authority is breakable and can be modified in court proceedings, although it should be based on the original substantive standing before an administrative body.

Associations may therefore seek judicial protection of their own rights and those of their members, provided that these rights are linked to the specific interests concerned and respect the framework that defines the activities of the association. Although the legislation seeks to allow for broad protection of public interests, associations are not granted a universal possibility to intervene in all cases and cannot, for example, claim the protection of public interests if they only affect the rights of third parties.

In practice, the boundaries of the protection of interests recognized by the courts are often blurred – and this is where there is room for disputes between associations, developers or other affected entities. Those who do not know exactly where the associations’ substantive standing ends will easily encounter a delay that could have been avoided. Therefore, it is worth dealing with possible collisions before the project is launched or before the association itself is established. Well-set legal boundaries can ensure that each of the participants has a clearly defined space and that the progress of the project takes place without unnecessary surprises.