In 2022, VŠPJ submitted an application for planning permission for the construction of dormitories, which was objected to by the owners of neighbouring properties who are trying to purposely prevent the implementation of this public benefit plan. On the merits, all objections were successively rejected as irrelevant at all stages of the procedure. The conduct of this group of litigants, in view of the obvious legal desire to complicate and complicate the construction procedure as much as possible, has been regarded as bullying, successively by the construction authority, the regional appeal authority, the superior authorities in reviewing all the binding opinions of the authorities concerned and even the authorities superior to those appeal authorities, and subsequently by the regional court, which found that the building permit had been issued in full compliance with the law and correctly. In the case, an objection of so-called systemic bias was even raised, whereby the construction proceedings had to be transferred to Havlíčkův Brod and the Central Bohemian Region. After the VŠPJ received all the necessary subsidies and started construction on the basis of a final building permit, the joint legal representative of the property owners, attorney Mgr. Smrčka filed another petition for review of the building permit, the so-called cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court, with which he combined a request for suspension of the building permit.

The VŠPJ immediately filed a complaint of bias against the judges of the Supreme Administrative Court, as it found out from publicly available sources that the lawyer Mgr. Smrčka worked with the judges of the SAC who decided the case in the same panel of the SAC. Thus, the issuance of Resolution 9 As 184/2024 - 98 by the Supreme Administrative Court on the postponement of the construction, which, in the opinion of the VŠPJ, is an illegal decision, may cause considerable damage to the VŠPJ in real terms and may even prevent the construction of the dormitories, raises doubts not only from the legal point of view, but also from the point of view of the impartiality of the judges of the Supreme Administrative Court who participated in its issuance. This is truly alarming in the context of the generally criticised excessiveness and impassability of construction proceedings and the machinations that often accompany such proceedings.