| I. Formal assessment (FA) |
| I.FA-A Compliance with formal regulation | It is partially compliant with EU Directive 2011/92/EU because the obligation of transparency and making documents available is only partially implemented. It does not support public participation. | It is partially compliant with EU Directive 2011/92/EU, as it facilitates access to information about the existence of ongoing EIA proceedings. However, it does not publish the full text of key documents providing only metadata. Moreover, it lacks functionalities for public participation, including the absence of a consultation mechanism and the ability to submit comments. | It is compliant with EU Directive 2011/92/EU. |
| I.FA-B Primary implementation aim | Ensuring public access to EIA documents to fulfill transparency obligations. | Maintaining a central register of EIA proceedings nationwide. Providing metadata access for both authorities and the public. | Comprehensive support for the entire EIA processes, including document access, public consultations, and case management for all stakeholders. Ensuring transparency. |
| II. Substantive assessment (SA) |
| II.SA-A Ease of searching | Access to the platform is possible via the website, which is administered by the General Director for Environmental Protection. It does not require registration. | Access to the database is possible via the website, which is administered by the General Director for Environmental Protection. Direct access is available via the “Handle the Matter” section, which is of limited intuitiveness. It does not require registration. The login function visible on the website is for administrative purposes only, which may be misleading to the investor. | Access to the database is possible via the website of CENIA in the “EIA” section. Registration is not required either to view metadata or to download documents (e.g. EIA reports, opinions, decisions). |
| II.SA-B User interface | Acceptable. It’s largely form-based. A form is provided, where the investor enters his Project Information Card (PIC) search criteria, as well as a form with a list of found cards. If the search criteria are empty, the list presents all of them, starting with the newest ones. | Acceptable. The formal and tabular appearance is preserved. | Satisfactory. Searching many types of projects is possible: such as national, cross-border, with a potential impact on Natura 2000 sites and sub-threshold ones. Easy searching by location of a project, investor, and document type. A clear results structure is maintained. |
| II.SA-C Document accessibility | Unsatisfactory. The full text of PIC/report may require contacting the appropriate administrative body. As of July 1, 2025, the Ecoportal is no longer a place where metadata about environmental documents is published. The relevant administrative bodies will have to publish such information independently in their own Public Information Bulletins (BIP) or other IT systems. | Insufficient. Direct searches for the PIC are not supported; however, the land property can be identified, along with its spatial and environmental characteristics, which constitute the basis for preparation of the PIC. | Satisfactory. Public access to documents is provided, including reports, graphic attachments, opinions, decisions, and even historical data on EIA proceedings. |
| II.SA-D Information currency | Data is updated, but the pace and regularity of updates depends on the authorities conducting the proceedings. | Data is updated. | Information about ongoing and completed EIA processes and accompanying documents is current. |
| II.SA-E Language and comprehensibility | The official language is used. Environmental documentation is in Polish (if provided). No multilingual support. | The official language is used. Multilingual support is not provided. | Operation is available in English and Czech. The structure and accessibility are good The documentation is in Czech. |
| II.SA-F Filtering capabilities | Insufficient. Basic filtering options are retained (e.g., by document type, voivodeship name, publication date). Filtering by procedure status (initiated, completed), investor, or document author is not possible. Advanced multi-field filtering and data export to a document are missing. | Also insufficient. Users have more advanced filters, but still limited to predefined search fields. Filtering by section “report” can be confusing for investor – instead of individual environmental reports, investors may receive general, aggregated summaries of varying nature. | Satisfactory. Searching is possible by: project type, procedure status (e.g., submitted, in consultation, completed), impact category, document type (KIP, report, decision), region/location (country, district), documentation author (expert), transboundary impact (YES/NO), and date of procedure initiation and completion. Data export (e.g., results list to a CSV file) is possible. Advanced, multi-field information search type. |
| II.SA-G Integration with tools supporting building procedures | Insufficient. Lack of integration with the e-Construction platform. | Lack of integration with the e-Construction platform. | Sufficient. It provides a public API enabling automatic download of environmental decision data (for local offices). |
