COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Czechia Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Czechia, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 302 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Czechia Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  2020 Rule of Law Report         The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

A  number  of  important  reforms  of  the  Czech  justice  system  are  currently  ongoing  or  in 
preparation,  including  on  the  public  prosecution,  the  selection  procedure  for  judges  and 
disciplinary regime for judges and prosecutors. These reforms could contribute to increasing 
the transparency and limiting the influence of the executive in the appointments, promotion 
and dismissal of judges and prosecutors. Certain limited aspects of the proposed reforms, in 
particular as regards high-ranking prosecutors, have given rise to some concerns. As regards 
the quality of the justice system, the effective introduction of the e-file would contribute to 
the  digitalisation  and  the  accessibility  of  courts.  The  proposed  increase  of  court  fees  has 
raised questions as regards its impact on access to justice for the most vulnerable. 

The legal and institutional framework to fight corruption is broadly in place. There have been 
a number of initiatives aiming to  increase transparency  and accountability, in  particular the 
launch of the register of contracts and the new law on nominations to state-owned enterprises. 
Nevertheless, several important legislative measures are still pending adoption, for example 
the bills on lobbying and whistle-blower protection as well as the bill extending the mandate 
of the Supreme Audit Office. There are ongoing investigations and audits at both national and 
European level into potential conflicts of interest and the use of EU funds. There are concerns 
that high-level corruption cases are not pursued sufficiently. Some gaps have been identified 
in the integrity frameworks applicable to Members of Parliament. 

The  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  and  Basic  Freedoms,  incorporated  into  the  Czech 
Constitutional  Order,  in  its  Article  17,  guarantees  freedom  of  expression  and  the  right  to 
information, and expressly bans censorship. The media sector is still exposed to risks related 
to  the  influence  of  media  owners  over  editorial  content  and  stemming  from  the  lack  of 
specific  rules  regulating  the  transparency  of  media  ownership.  The  Czech  Broadcasting 
Council  appears  to  effectively  carry  out  its  tasks,  although  there  appears  to  have  been  an 
increasing  polarisation  of  recent  decisions  concerning  media  coverage  of  certain  issues  of 
high political sensitivity.  

The  system  of  checks  and  balances  in  Czechia  is  well-established.  Conducting  impact 
assessments and consulting stakeholders are established practices for enacting legislation and 
efforts are ongoing to further increase the transparency of the legislative process. Some civil 
society  organisations  have  nevertheless  called  for  a  more  systematic  involvement  of  civil 
society  stakeholders  in  the  legislative  process.  While  there  is  a  vibrant  and  diverse  civil 
society, the pressure on certain types of NGOs is rising, in particular in the area of migration. 
There  is  an  Ombudsperson  but  not  yet  a  National  Human  Rights  Institution.  Initiatives  are 
undertaken  for organising  regular debates on rule of law related topics, in particular by the 
Senate. 

1 

 
 
 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The Czech justice system is composed of eighty-six district courts, eight regional courts, two 
high courts, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court1. The central body of 
state responsible for the administration of the courts is the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry 
of  Justice  performs  state  administration  of  high,  regional  and  district  courts  to  the  extent 
stipulated by law2, either directly or through the presidents of these courts. Some acts of the 
central  state  administration  are  performed  by  the  Presidents  of  the  two  Supreme  Courts. 
These  various  authorities  take  into  account  the  opinions  of  the  relevant  judicial  councils, 
which are established at the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, high courts, 
regional  courts  and  larger  district  courts.  Judges  are  appointed  by  the  President  of  the 
Republic, from candidates selected by the presidents of regional courts and presented by the 
Minister  of  Justice.  The  prosecution  service  is  part  of  the  executive  branch.  Public 
prosecutors are appointed into their office for an indefinite time by the Minister of Justice on 
a proposal from the Prosecutor General. The Prosecutor General is appointed and recalled by 
the  Government  on  a  proposal  from  the  Minister  of  Justice3.  The  Bar  Association  is 
established  by  law  and  is  independent.  It  performs  public  administration  in  the  area  of  the 
legal  profession  and  provides  self-regulation  for  the  entire  profession.  The  self-governing 
power of the Bar is limited by the power of the Minister of Justice in the areas listed by law4. 

Independence 

A  reform  of  the  selection  procedure  for  judges  is  being  discussed  in  Parliament.  This 
reform5 aims to increase transparency and accountability in the selection of ordinary judges 
as  well  as  court  presidents.  The  process  of  selection  of  candidates  for  a  judicial  post  is 
currently  not  stipulated  by  law.  In  practice,  the  candidates  are  nominated  by  presidents  of 
regional courts who forward a list to the Ministry of Justice. After further consideration, the 
latter  presents  a  final  list  of  candidates  to  the  President  of  the  Republic,  who  formally 
appoints the judges. Candidates for presidents of high and regional courts are proposed by the 
Minister of Justice6. If the President of the Republic refuses to appoint a candidate, he or she 
is required to provide reasons. The decisions of the President on the appointment of a judge 
are  subject  to  judicial  review  before  the  administrative  courts7.  The  proposed  amendments 
seek to establish a more transparent and uniform system of recruitment and selection of new 
judges and court presidents based on precise, objective and uniform criteria8. The reform also 

1    In addition, specialised administrative chambers  within regional courts act as administrative courts of  first 

instance.  

2     Act No. 6/2002 Coll., On Courts and Judges. 
3   The  method of appointment and dismissal of  high-ranking prosecutors is part of a  reform proposed by the 

Ministry of Justice in June 2019.   

4   Input from Czechia for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 6, and contribution from the Czech Bar Association 

for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 13.  

5   Amendment to the Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on Courts and Judges. Besides reforming the selection procedure 
for judges, the proposed amendments also include a more detailed regulation of secondary activity of judges 
and a changes concerning lay jurors.  

6   Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on Courts and Judges, and figures 61, 62 and 65,  EU Justice Scoreboard 2018.  
7   The decisions are subject to judicial review with regard to, inter alia, the right to equal conditions of access 
to elected and other public office, and the right for the case to be heard without undue delay. Decisions of the 
Supreme Administrative Court of 27 April 2006,  no. 4 Aps 4/2005 and of 21 May 2008, no. 4 Ans 9/2007.  
8   Amendment  to  the  Act  No.  6/2002  Coll.,  on  Courts  and  Judges.  The  proposed  selection  system  of  new 
judges will, if the amendments are adopted, consist of five phases: 1. a practice as an assistant of judge, 2. 
judicial exam, 3. selection procedure of a judicial candidate, 4. practice of a judicial candidate and 5. an open 
competition for the position of a judge. Applicants from other legal professions (such as lawyers, notaries, 
bailiffs or public prosecutors) may also apply for the position of a judicial candidate and/or judge.  

2 

 
 
                                                 
lays down the composition of the selection committees for the position of court presidents at 
high,  regional  and  district  courts.  The  latter  would  have  five  members,  of  which  two 
representing  the  executive  and  three  representing  the  judiciary  and  the  membership  of  the 
selection committees in charge of assessing the candidates is furthermore explicitly defined 
according to the position in question9. The intention is that the committees recommending the 
final list of candidates for appointment would have a substantial part of their members drawn 
from the judiciary, which is consistent with Council of Europe recommendations10.  

The  perception  of  judicial  independence  among  the  general  public  and  companies  is 
average. The independence of the courts is perceived as ‘fairly or very good’ by 56 % among 
the general public and 44 % among companies. These figures have seen an overall increase in 
recent years11. 

A  draft  reform  of  the  disciplinary  regime  for  judges,  prosecutors  and  bailiffs  is  now 
before Parliament12. Its stated objective is, on the one hand, to strengthen the guarantees of 
the  legality  of  proceedings  by  introducing  an  appelate  system and,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
increase  the  proceedings’  efficiency.  Under  the  current  regime,  it  is  not  possible  to  appeal 
against  a  decision  of  the  disciplinary  court,  which  is  a  special  senate  at  the  Supreme 
Administrative Court13. The reform would establish a two-tier disciplinary system, with high 
courts  acting  as  courts  of  first  instance  and  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  Supreme 
Administrative  court  as  appellate  courts.  Such  a  reform  could  contribute  to  strengthening 
judicial independence, which is consistent with Council of Europe recommendations14. 

A  draft  reform  of  the  public  prosecution  service  was  proposed  by  the  Minister  of 
Justice.  The  reform15,  presented  in  June  2019,  will  amend  the  appointment  and  dismissal 
regime  for  the  prosecution  service.  At  present,  the  Prosecutor  General  is  appointed  by  the 

9   E.g. for the selection of the president of a high or regional court, the members of the selection committee are 
proposed  to  be:  the  Deputy  Minister  of  Justice,  an  expert  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  the  president  (or 
his/her authorised representative vice-president) of the regional or high court in which the office of president 
is to be occupied, the president (or the deputy president) of the regional or high the court in which the office 
of  president  is  not  to  be  occupied,  and  the  president  of  the  Supreme  Court  or  his/her  designated  vice-
president.  

10   Para. 47 of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. As 
regards the process of judicial appointment from the perspective of judges’ independence and impartiality, 
Joined  Cases  C-585/18,  C-624/18  and  C-625/18,  A.K.,  paras  124-125  and  133-134;  Case  C-272/19,  Land 
Hessen, paras 54-60. 

11   Figures 44 and 46, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

12   Act No. 7/2002 Coll. on Proceedings in Matters of Judges, Prosecutors and Bailiffs.  
13   It is possible to request reopening of the proceedings if previously unknown information come to light, and it 

is possible to file a constitutional complaint; these are however not considered as standard review. 

14   CDL-AD(2016)017,  Rule  of  Law  Checklist,  para  78,  CM/Rec(2010)12,  para  69  and  CDL-AD(2010)004, 
para  43. According to  the case law of the European  Court  of Justice  (C‑ 216/18 PPU, LM, 25 July 2018, 
para  67):  “the  requirement  of  independence  also  means  that  the  disciplinary  regime  governing  those  who 
have the task of adjudicating in a dispute must display the necessary guarantees in order to prevent any risk 
of its being used as a system of political control of the content of judicial decisions. Rules which define, in 
particular,  both  conduct  amounting  to  disciplinary  offences  and  the  penalties  actually  applicable,  which 
provide for the involvement of an independent body in accordance with a procedure which fully safeguards 
the rights enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, in particular the rights of the defence, and which lay 
down the possibility of bringing legal proceedings challenging the disciplinary bodies’ decisions constitute a 
set of guarantees that are essential for safeguarding the independence of the judiciary”. 

15   Materials  published  in  the  electronic  library  of  the  legislative  process,  https://apps.odok.cz/veklep-

detail?pid=KORNBD9J6ZWU.  

3 

 
 
                                                 
Government, on a proposal of the Minister of Justice and for an indefinite period. At the same 
time, the law stipulates that the Prosecutor General may be dismissed by the Government on 
a  proposal  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  without  stating  reasons16.  As  to  other  prosecutors,  the 
law prescribes which authority appoints them, but does not regulate the selection process, nor 
the requirements that a candidate for the position needs to fulfil. The reform proposed by the 
Minister of Justice stipulates that high-ranking prosecutors, including the Prosecutor General, 
may  be  dismissed  only  by  a  decision  issued  in  a  disciplinary  proceeding.  It  also  prescribes 
that  senior  public  prosecutors  would  be  appointed  for  seven  years,  and  lays  down  the 
requirements  for  candidates  for  prosecutorial  offices,  and  the  process  of  their  selection. 
Candidates  should  be  selected  by  a  committee  of  five  members,  three  of  which  should  be 
nominated by the Ministry of Justice (one of them must be a judge), one by the Prosecutor 
General, and one by a senior public prosecutor, who is responsible for submitting a proposal 
for appointment of the senior public prosecutors. The amendment also foresees that the term 
of office of the current Prosecutor General would end in the year 2023, and the term of the 
two  High  Prosecutors  in  2024.  In  the  consultation  process,  several  stakeholders17  have 
expressed concerns that some of the proposed amendments would maintain a high degree of 
involvement  of  the  executive  branch  in  the  selection  of  the  Prosecutor  General  and  other 
chief prosecutors, in particular via the nomination of the members of the committee in charge 
of  selecting  candidates  for  prosecutorial  offices.  Moreover,  stakeholders  have  criticised  the 
fact  that,  while  the  amendment  prescribes  a  term  of  seven  years  for  senior  prosecutors,  the 
term  of the current  Prosecutor General  and the two High Prosecutors would  end already in 
the years 2023 and 2024 respectively, given that they have been in office for longer than the 
term envisaged by the reform18. The draft reform is still awaiting Government approval and 
the legislative process in Parliament has yet to begin.  

Quality  

The Government has proposed an amendment to the Court Fee Act, which is now under 
consideration in Parliament19. The draft amendments to the Act on Court Fees, presented in 
February 2020, represent a comprehensive increase in some court fees so as to bring them in 
line with the increased living standards since the last amendment in 201120. At the same time, 
the  proposal  foresees  an  increase  in  the  amount  of  certain  court  fees,  with  the  aim  of 
encouraging  more  prudent  litigation21  and  the  use  of  alternative  dispute  resolution,  such  as 
amicable  settlements  through  mediation22.  At  present,  the  court  fees  are  comparatively  low 

16   Act No. 283/1993 Coll., on the Public Prosecutor's Office.  
17    Including  the  Prosecutor  General,  the  Union  of  Public  Prosecutors  and  the  Government  Council  for  the 

Coordination of the Fight against Corruption. 

18   See previous note. In a press release, the Prosecutor General stated that in the light of the stipulated end of 

term, the true aim of the law is to replace him and the two High Prosecutors.  

19   Bill amending Act No. 549/1991 Coll., On court fees. 
20   In particular, for example, fees for a proposal to initiate civil court proceedings on a pecuniary claim up to 
CZK  20,000 (approx. EUR 750) would double from CZK 1000 (approx. EUR 37) to CZK 2000 (approx. 
EUR  75),    fees  for  a  proposal  for  the  issuance  of  an  electronic  payment  order,  the  subject  of  which  is 
monetary performance up to the amount of CZK 10,000 (approx. EUR 375) would merge with the category 
up to CZK 20,000 (approx. EUR 750) and the fee would increased from CZK 400 (approx. EUR 15) to CZK 
1,500 (approx. EUR 56), and a fee for a proposal to initiate  proceedings in matters of administrative justice 
against the decision of the administrative body would increase from CZK 3,000 (approx. EUR 113) to CZK 
6,000 (approx. EUR 225). 

21   The  number of incoming civil and commercial litigious cases  has been consistently  slightly above the EU 

average in the period  2012 – 2018. Figure 3, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  

22   In such case, the court fees would be returned or reduced.  

4 

 
 
                                                 
for civil and consumer cases, but relatively high for commercial cases23. In the consultation 
process and public debate, several stakeholders24 have raised concerns as regards the effect of 
the  reform  on  the  access  to  justice,  in  particular  for  the  most  vulnerable  members  of  the 
population25. To address these concerns, the bill proposes that an exemption from the court 
fees will no longer be considered as exceptional. A participant to court proceedings, who will 
prove that his or her financial situation is difficult, could be exempted from court fees. 

A system of broadened legal aid has been implemented by the Bar Association. The Bar 
has been implementing a system of broadened free legal aid introduced in 201826, in which 
legal  advice is  provided  by an attorney  for a very  low  fee or for  free27. This  scheme is  co-
financed by the state.  

There  is  room  for  improvement  in  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system.  While  it  is 
possible to submit a claim digitally28, it is not yet possible to access judicial files online and 
judgments are only partially accessible online29. The Covid-19 pandemic highligted the need 
to  introduce  digital  court  files.  Although  the  Ministry  of  Justice  has  already  launched  the 
process  of  implementing  the  e-file,  the  project  is  still  at  an  early  stage30.  So  far,  e-file  can 
only be used in proceedings regarding orders for payment31.  

A reform of insolvency proceedings was adopted in 2019.  The amendment expanded the 
cases in which a court may declare a debtor debt-free. The amendment was prompted by the 
high number of people in the so-called “debt trap” and the negative impacts of this situation 
for both  society  and individuals32. According to  the latest  statistics (February 2020), almost 
800,000  persons,  representing  about  8%  of  the  population,  are  debtors  in  enforcement 
proceedings  carried  out  by  bailiffs33,  including  numerous  cases  when  this  has  been 
disproportionate  to  the  original  claim.  According  to  information  from  2019,  90  %  of  the 
debtors  were  not  able  to  ever  repay  their  debts  and  are  potentially  faced  with  subsistance 
problems34.  Such  situations  may  impact  negatively  on  various  fundamental  rights35.  The 

23   Figures  24  and  25,  2020  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  Based  on  a  specific  consumer  case  and  a  specific 

commercial case scenario, respectively.  

24   For example the Supreme Administrative Court, the Government Commissioner for Human Rights, Ministry 

of Labor and Social Affairs or the Public Defender of Rights.  

25   The  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  (ECtHR)  found  that  court  fees  could,  under  certain  circumstances, 
hinder access to justice. See ECtHR, Kreuz v. Poland, paras 60-67; ECtHR Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. 
Poland,  paras  65-66;  ECtHR  Weissman  and  Others  v.  Romania,  para  42;  ECtHR  Georgel  and  Georgeta 
Stoicescu v. Romania, paras 69-70; ECtHR Stankov v. Bulgaria, para 59. See also judgment of the European 
Court of Justice, C-279/09, DEB, para 61, and C-61/14, Orizzonte Salute, paras 46-47.  

26   As a part of the Act No. 258/2017 Coll., amending the Act on the Legal Profession.  
27  The  duration of  this  free legal advice ranges  from 30 to  a  maximum of 120  minutes per  year. The fee  for 
processing  the  application  is  set  at  CZK  100  (approx.  EUR  4),  but  there  are  exceptions  where  the  fee  is 
waived completely. 

28   Figure 27, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
29   Figure 28, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
30   An ongoing tender for the developer.  
31    In addition, since 2019 a project is ongoing to modernise and digitalise the office of the General Prosecutor 
through the analysis of process workflows of the Public Prosecutor's Office, with a particular focus on the 
possibilities of digitalisation of processes,  supported from the European Commission’s  Structural Reform 
Support Programme. 

32   Explanatory report to Act No. 31/2019.  
33   Website of the Chamber of Bailiffs of the Czech Republic, Statistical overview 
      https://statistiky.ekcr.info/statistiky. 
34   Regulatory Impact Assessment report to Act No. 31/2019.   
35   Decision of the Czech Constitutional Court No. I. ÚS 3271/13. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
reform  seeks  to  give  more  debtors  the  opportunity  to  be  declared  debt-free  through 
insolvency proceedings. It remains to be seen whether the amendment will fulfil its purpose.  

Efficiency 

The  justice  system  is  not  facing  any  particular  efficiency  challenges  in  civil  and 
commercial cases, but proceedings in administrative cases remain lengthy. The estimated 
length  of  court  proceedings  in  civil  and  commercial  cases  is  at  average  or  shorter  than 
average  level,  and  the  clearance  rate  suggests  that  courts  are  able  to  cope  with  incoming 
cases36. In administrative cases, Czechia reports average results, with an estimated time for a 
decision  in  an  administrative  case  in  first  instance  taking  412  days  in  201837.  The  rate  of 
resolving  cases  belongs  to  the  lower  ones  in  the  EU  context38,  which  indicates  existing 
challenges  in  this  field.  One  of  the  reasons  could  be  relative  under-staffing,  whereby  only 
about 4 % of all judges deal with administrative cases39. Data published by the Ministry of 
Justice40  suggest  that  in  2019,  there  were  significant  regional  differences  in  efficiency  of 
courts41.  Those  differences  persist,  despite  a  positive  trend  of  reduction  of  the  gap.  The 
Ministry of Justice started to reflect on a possible amendment of the Code of Administrative 
Justice, inter alia to speed up the procedure before administrative courts and contribute to its 
efficiency42.  

II.  ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK 

The legal and institutional framework to fight corruption is largely in place. The competence 
to fight corruption is shared between several authorities. The Conflict of Interests and Anti-
Corruption Department of the Ministry of Justice is in charge of the anti-corruption agenda. 
An Anti-Corruption Council established in 2014 acts as an advisory body to the Government. 
The National Organised Crime Agency, in cooperation with the Public Prosecutors’ Offices, 
investigates corruption related crimes. The Financial Analytical Office was established as an 
independent  administrative  office  in  2017  and  acts  as  a  financial  intelligence  unit.  The 
Supreme Audit Office reviews the state’s management of public revenue and expenditure and 
its findings may contribute to the identification of corruption risks. In recent years, a number 
of  reforms  in  the  area  of  transparency  and  accountability  were  initiated.  Several  important 
legislative  measures  are  still  to  be  adopted,  notably  as  regards  lobbying  and  whistleblower 
protection, as well as a bill extending the mandate of the Supreme Audit Office.  

In  the  latest  Transparency  International  2019  Corruption  Perceptions  Index,  Czechia 
scored 56/100 and was ranked 13th in the European Union and 44th globally43. 87% of the 
respondents to the 2020 Special Eurobarometer survey on corruption think that corruption is 
widespread in their country (EU average: 71%) and 22% of people feel personally affected by 

36   Figures 5-7 and Figures 10 -11, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.   
37   Figure 8, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
38   88 % in 2018, Figure 12, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
39   Information received in the context of the country visit and corroborated by data in Czech Justice System in 
2019:  Annual  Statistical  Report  published  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  and  CEPEJ  (2020),  Study  on  the 
functioning of the judicial systems in the EU Member States. 

40   Czech Justice System in 2019: Annual Statistical Report, Ministry of Justice 2020.   
41   For example, the average length of civil proceedings in the slowest courts being almost double of the length 
in  the  fastest  court.  Czech  Justice  System  in  2019:  Annual  Statistical  Report,  Ministry  of  Justice  2020, 
published on 30 June 2020. 

42   Information provided by Czech authorities. 
43   Transparency International (2020), 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index.  

6 

 
 
                                                 
corruption  in  their  daily  lives  (EU  average:  26%)44.  Furthermore,  76%  companies  consider 
corruption  to  be  widespread  (EU  average  63%)  whereas  32%  of  companies  consider 
corruption  to  be  a  problem  when  doing  business  in  Czechia  (EU  average:  37%)45.  29%  of 
people  find  that  there  are  enough  successful  prosecutions  to  deter  people  from  corrupt 
practices  (EU  average:  36%)  while  21%  of  companies  consider  that  people  and  businesses 
caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 31%). 

Czechia  has  a  well-established  strategic  anti-corruption  framework.  Since  1999,  the 
Government  has  adopted  consecutive  anti-corruption  strategies.  The  current  strategy  covers 
the period 2018-202246 and envisages the preparation of three one-year action plans, whose 
implementation is to be monitored by the Government Anti-Corruption Council. The Council 
is supported by the Conflict of Interests and Anti-Corruption Department of the Ministry of 
Justice,  which  drafts  anti-corruption  strategic  documents  and  is  in  charge  of  the  anti-
corruption agenda. In February 2020, the Government approved the new Action Plan for the 
fight  against  corruption47.  It  focuses  on  four  main  priority  areas:  (i)  an  effective  and 
independent  Government;  (ii)  transparency  and  open  access  to  information;  (iii)  efficient 
management  of  state  property  and  (iv)  development  of  civil  society.  In  April  2020,  the 
Government concluded that most actions in the 2019 action plan have been completed48.  

The  anti-corruption  criminal  legal  framework  is  broadly  in  place  although  some 
challenges  remain.  The  Czech  Criminal  Code  criminalises  the  offences  of  acceptance  of  a 
bribe,  bribery,  trading  in  influence  and  arranging  advantage  in  commission  of  a  public 
contract,  public  tender  and  public  auction49.  The  bribery  provisions  do  not  cover  all 
categories of employees in the public sector, as they are limited to “persons deciding or co-
deciding on the affair in the public interest”50. Foreign bribery is not specifically criminalised 
by  the  Criminal  Code51.  An  advisory  body  to  the  Government,  established  in  2014, 
coordinates and evaluates the activities in the field of anti-corruption.  

The number of persons investigated, prosecuted and convicted for corruption offences 
has  been  fluctuating  over  the  past  three  years.  In  2017,  the  Czech  law  enforcement 
authorities opened 115 investigations into corruption offences, compared to 319 in 2018 and 
152  in  2019.  148  persons  were  prosecuted  for  corruption  offences  or  suspected52  thereof  in 
2017, compared to 268 in 2018 and 190 in 201953. In the past years, Czechia has seen several 
high-level corruption cases being investigated, with alleged perpetrators being indicted and in 
some  cases,  convicted  by  the  court.  Nevertheless,  62%  of  Czech  respondents  to  the  2020 
Eurobarometer survey on corruption54 are of the opinion that there are not enough successful 
prosecutions  to  deter  people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average:  34%)  and  64%  think  that 
high-level corruption cases are not pursued sufficiently (EU average: 66%). Moreover, 54% 
of businesses responding to the 2019 Eurobarometer survey on Businesses’ attitudes towards 

44   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 
45   Special Eurobarometer 482 (2019).  
46   Government concept of the fight against corruption for the years 2018 to 2022.  
47   Anti-Corruption Action Plan 2020.  
48   Evaluation of the implementation of the measures set out in the Anti-Corruption Action Plan 2019.  
49   Chapter X, Division 3, Special section ‘Corruption’ of Act No. 40/2009 Coll., Criminal Code. 
50   GRECO Third Evaluation Round - Second Compliance Report on the Czech Republic. 
51      Implementing  the  OECD  anti-bribery  convention:  The  latest  Phase  4  follow-up  report  for  the  Czech 
Republic  on  the  implementation  of  the  OECD  anti-bribery  convention  notes  that  there  are  several 
recommendations that have either been partially addressed or not addressed at all.  

52   Sections 160 and 179b (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 
53   Information gathered during the country visit to Czechia, 3-5 June 2020. 
54   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020), Corruption. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
corruption in the EU55 think that it is unlikely that corrupt people would be heavily fined or 
imprisoned by a court (EU average: 39%).   

There  are  ongoing  investigations  and  audits  at  national  and  European  level  into 
potential conflicts of interest and the use of EU funds.  The management of EU funds in 
Czechia has been raised as a potential concern in recent  years56. Following an investigation 
between  2016  and  2017  by  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF),  which  found  serious 
irregularities as regards the use of EU funds, a criminal investigation in a high-profile case is 
at  present  ongoing  at  national  level,  and  further  Commission  audits  have  been  launched  to 
examine issues of possible conflicts of interest in relation to the use of EU funds. 

The  Act  on  conflict  of  interest  contains  rules  on  conflict  of  interests  and  disclosure  of 
assets57.  It  applies  to  cabinet  members,  members  of  Parliament,  regional  governors  and 
deputies, senior public officials, mayors and local council members, as well as members of 
statutory, management, supervisory or control bodies. The Act  establishes a central  register 
of notifications, administered by the Ministry of Justice. Persons covered by the Act have to 
submit their declarations on personal interests, assets, activities, income, gifts and liabilities. 
GRECO  has  highlighted  that  more  effective  sanctions  could  be  required  as  regards  the 
declaration  requirements58.  Equally,  it  has  been  highlighted  that  Czechia  should  consider 
widening  the  scope  of  declarations  to  cover  information  on  spouses  and  dependent  family 
members of Members of Parliament59. The law does not regulate the acceptance of gifts and 
other  advantages  by  parliamentarians60.  The  lack  of  clear  rules  for  parliamentarians  on,  for 
example,  the  acceptance  of  gifts  and  other  advantages,  on  the  declaration  of  activities  and 
incompatibilities  and  on  the  interaction  with  lobbyists  has  been  underlined  in  the  latest 
European Semester report61. 

Several initiatives aim to strengthen the anti-corruption and integrity rules as regards 
public  administration.  An  internal  anti-corruption  programme  framework62  is  in  place, 
which sets out a regular evaluation of corruption risks and internal risk management within 
ministries,  other  central  authorities  and  subordinate  bodies  and  agencies.  Each  authority  is 
obliged  to  establish  a  framework  that  includes  a  code  of  ethics,  integrity  trainings,  internal 
whistleblowing  procedures  and  procedures  for  cases  of  suspected  corruption.  The 
implementation  of the framework is  assessed at  least  every two  years. A  code of  ethics  for 
civil service officials and employees is put in place, which is binding for those working for 
the central administration. However, 80% of the respondents to a 2020 Eurobarometer survey 
on  corruption63  consider  that  there  is  corruption  in  the  local  or  regional  public  institutions 
(EU average: 68%).   

There is an ongoing debate as regards a draft bill extending the powers of the Supreme 
Audit Office. The extension of the mandate of the Supreme Audit Office is listed as one of 

55   Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019), Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU.  
56   In June 2020 the European Parliament adopted a Resolution (2019/2987(RSP)) concerning the situation in 
the  Czech Republic and expressed concerns in relation to the issue of conflicts of interest and the use and 
distribution of public and EU funds. 

57   Act no. 159/2006 Col. 
58     The  failure  to  submit  a  declaration  or  to declare  all  assets  may  trigger  a  financial  sanction  between  CZK 

1,000 (EUR 40) to CZK 50,000 (EUR 1,850).   

59   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report Czech Republic. 
60   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report Czech Republic.  
61   European Commission, Country report Czechia 2020, SWD(2020) 502 final, p. 43. 
62   Established by Government resolution from 2 October 2013, No. 752. 
63   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 

8 

 
 
                                                 
the priorities in the new Government Programme Statement64. The draft bill65 aims to expand 
the mandate of the Office to audit the regularity and performance of public spending at local 
and  regional  level.  The  Act  would  also  cover  state-owned  enterprises  and  companies  with 
majority ownership of the state and/or municipalities66. These measures are expected to have 
a positive impact when it comes to the accountability and transparency of public spending. 

Lobbying regulation has been proposed. The draft bill on lobbying67 is pending adoption. 
It will establish a publicly accessible register of lobbyists and lobbied persons. Lobbyists and 
public  officials  will  be  required  to  submit  quarterly  reports  with  information  on  their 
respective contacts with one another. Furthermore, the draft bill also establishes a ‘lobbying 
footprint’, which will be an obligatory attachment to all bills. It will contain information on 
lobbyists,  lobbied  persons  and  the  specific  way  in  which  the  legislation  in  question  was 
lobbied.  This  aims  to  increase  transparency  in  the  legislative  process.  The  draft  bill  also 
contains rules on the declaration of gifts.  

A  number  of  measures  provide  for  whistleblower  protection  and  encourage  the 
reporting  of  corruption.  Government  Regulation  No.  145/2015  Coll.  lays  down  a 
framework  for  internal  reporting  for  civil  servants  who  are  at  present  the  only  group  of 
employees protected as whistleblowers. Mechanisms for police officers and civil employees 
to  submit  a  notice  of  suspicion  of  corruption  have  also  been  put  in  place.  At  present,  the 
Ministry  of  Justice  is  drafting  a  bill  on  whistleblower  protection  in  order  to  implement 
Directive  2019/1937  on  the  protection  of  persons  who  report  breaches  of  Union  law68. 
According to survey data, 55% of the Czech respon\dents to the 2020 Eurobarometer survey 
on corruption69 would not know where to report a case of corruption should they experience 
or witness it (EU average: 54%). 

The  register  of  contracts  was  launched  in  July  201670  and  publishes  contracts  above 
CZK 50,000 (approximately EUR 2,000) online. The register includes contracts having as a 
party  one  of  the  selected  entities  governed  by  public  law,  for  example,  state,  local/regional 
authorities,  state  enterprises,  state  funds,  public  universities  or  legal  entities,  in  which  the 
state or a local/regional authority (itself or together with other local/regional authorities) has a 
majority  stake  through  other  legal  entity.  Certain  types  of  contract  are  exempted  from  a 
compulsory  publication  in  the  register71.  The  register  can  be  considered  as  an  example  of 
good practice with a positive preventive impact when it comes to corruption. 

64   Government Programme Statement.  
65   The  draft  bill  is  in  the  third  reading  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  pending  adoption  of  a  related 

Constitutional amendment by the Senate.  

66   Amendment of the Act on the Supreme Audit Office, (2018). 
67   The draft bill on lobbying consists of two separate but related drafts: a draft bill on lobbying (Parliamentary 
print  565)  and  a  draft  bill  which  changes  some  acts  in  relation  with  approval  of  act  on  lobbying 
(Parliamentary print 566).  

68   Directive  (EU)  2019/1937  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2019  on  the 

protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17–56. 

69   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 
70  A clause stating that a contract is effective only if it was published in the register of contracts entered into   

force 1 July 2017. 

71  Website  of  the  Ministry  of  Interior  on  the  register  of  contracts,  https://www.mvcr.cz/clanek/registr- 

smluv.aspx?q=Y2hudW09NA%3d%3d.   

9 

 
 
                                                 
The  Act  on  nominations  to  state-owned  companies  was  adopted  by  the  Parliament  in 
December 2019 and entered into force in January  202072. The Act  lays down new rules 
for the selection of members of statutory and management bodies of state-owned companies, 
as  well  as  companies  with  partial  state  ownership.  The  Act  aims  to  prevent  political 
nominations  and  to  further  increase  the  transparency  of  the  selection  process  as  candidates 
will have to pass a selection procedure, run by a Government committee. 

In 2019, the Government carried out a corruption risk analysis of the healthcare sector. 
The  analysis  identified  the  sector  as  one  of  the  high-risk  sectors  as  far  as  corruption  is 
concerned.  It  highlighted  that  corruption  risks  exist  on  all  sides  of  the  healthcare  sector, 
ranging  from  corruption  generated by patients  and healthcare providers to corruption  at  the 
central Government level73. Following the analysis, the Ministry of Health aims to introduce 
specific mitigating measures and is also expected to present a legal proposal to optimise the 
functioning of public insurance companies. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

The  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  and  Basic  Freedoms,  incorporated  in  the  Czech 
Constitutional  Order  guarantees  freedom  of  expression  and  the  right  to  information,  and 
expressly bans  censorship74. The Act  on Radio  and Television Broadcasting  clearly defines 
the  competences  of  the  Czech  media  regulator75  while  the  Act  on  Free  Access  to 
Information76 guarantees access to information held by public authorities. 

The Government is considering a reform to further strengthen independence of media 
regulator.  The  Act  on  Radio  and  Television  Broadcasting  attributes  the  role  of  Czechia’s 
media regulator to the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting (the Council)77, which 
is  authorised  to  supervise  radio  and  television  broadcasting,  as  well  as  on-demand 
audiovisual media services. Other media outlets (print, online) are subject to a general regime 
stemming from criminal law, advertising rules, the consumer protection framework and self-
regulatory  initiatives78.  The  Act  establishes  the  Council  as  an  “independent  administrative 
body”  consisting  of  13  members  and  lays  down  the  Council’s  duties  and  obligations. 
Furthermore,  it  sets  out  the  eligibility  criteria,  exclusionary  criteria  and  appointment 
procedures for the Council’s members and head. The decisions of the Council are subject to 
judicial review. In case that the Council repeatedly and seriously infringes the obligations laid 
down  in  the  Act,  or  if  its  mandatory  annual  report  repeatedly  fails  to  be  approved  due  to 
serious  faults,  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  may  propose  to  the  Prime  Minister  to  remove  the 
entire Council. The authorities have announced that a proposal has been tabled to limit this 
power of the Chamber of Deputies, so that only individual members may be removed in such 
cases.  This  reform  aims  to  strengthen  the  independence  of  the  Council  as  a  whole,  in  line 
with the objectives of the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)79.  

72    Act  on  the  Selection  of  Persons  to  the  Management  and  Supervisory  Bodies  of  Legal  Entities  with  State 

Ownership Participation (Nomination Act).  

73   Government Anti-corruption portal, www.korupce.cz.  
74   Between 2019 and 2020, Czechia’s position in the Reporters Without Borders  World Press Freedom  Index 

remained stable at 40th place worldwide. Reporters without Borders, Czech Republic.  

75   Act No. 231/2001 Coll, as amended.  
76   Act No. 106/1999 Col. 
77   Act No. 231/2001 Coll., as amended.   
78   Among them the Czech Advertising Standards Council. 
79    Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending 
Directive  2010/13/EU  on  the  coordination  of  certain  provisions  laid  down  by  law,  regulation  or 

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  competences  of  the  Council  are  well-defined  in  law  and  effectively  applied  in 
practice. As noted in the Media Pluralism Monitor 202080 (MPM 2020), the functioning of 
the  media  regulator  demonstrates  low  risk  overall,  although  there  appears  to  have  been  an 
increasing  polarisation  of  recent  decisions  concerning  media  coverage  of  certain  issues  of 
high political sensitivity81.  

Czechia  has  no  specific  rules  regulating  the  transparency  of  media  ownership.  The 
above-mentioned Act on Radio and Television Broadcasting also aims to control the mergers 
between broadcasters and puts into place limits on accumulation of licences or personal links 
among different broadcasters. The Act on Conflict of Interest82 prohibits any public official 
from  being  a  radio  or  television  broadcaster,  or  a  publisher  of  printed  media  or  controlling 
person of such broadcaster or publisher. The act requires certain facts to be introduced in the 
relevant public registries in line with general rules regulating company registration. However, 
media companies are not obliged to reveal their ownership structures, changes thereto or any 
information relating to the ultimate beneficial owner of the company83. It should be noted in 
this  context  that  the  MPM  2020  points  to  a  high  risk  regarding  media  ownership 
transparency,  not  least  given  the  general  high  risk  levels  associated  with  threats  to  market 
plurality more  generally  in  terms  of commercial  and owner influence over editorial content 
and  news  media  concentration84.  In  spite  of  the  adoption  of  amendments  to  the  Conflict  of 
Interest Act in 2017, which explicitly prohibit politicians from owning stakes in media, risks 
to political independence of the media remain high, considering that political influence might 
still be exercised though informal networks and power alliances between owners and political 
actors85.  Civil  society  and  journalists  associations  consulted  by  the  Commission  for  this 
report  have  confirmed  that  these  dynamics  represent  the  most  significant  risk  to  media 
pluralism in the country86.   

Czechia does not possess specific rules regarding allocation of state advertising beyond 
the general requirements for advertisement set out in the Public Procurement Act87, i.e. that 
any  state  advertising  contract  with  a  value  over  50,000  CZK  (approximately  EUR  2,000) 
shall be published and made available in the public registry. MPM 2020 also points to some 
risks  stemming  from  the  lack  of  regulation  ensuring  transparency  of  political  advertising 
online88.  

administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual 
Media Services Directive, AVMSD) in view of changing market realities.  

80   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor.  
81   The Czech authorities have prepared a draft law transposing the revised AVMSD, the adoption of which is 

envisaged at the end of 2020 or beginning of 2021.  

82   Act No. 159/2006 Coll., as amended.   
83  The revised AVMSD encourages Member States to adopt legislative measures providing that media service 
providers  under  their  jurisdiction  make  accessible  information  concerning  their  ownership  structure, 
including the beneficial owners. Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by 
law,  regulation  or  administrative  action  in  Member  States  concerning  the  provision  of  audiovisual  media 
services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities.  

84   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor. 
85   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor. 
86   Information received in the context of the country visit and of the consultation process for the preparation of 
the  report,    e.g.  contribution  from  Transparency  International  Czech  Republic  for  the  2020  Rule  of  Law 
Report.  

87   Act No. 134/2016 Col. 
88   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor. 

11 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
Access to information is guaranteed by the law but obstacles can exist in practice.  The 
Act  on  Free  Access  to  Information89  guarantees  access  to  information  held  by  public 
authorities. A draft amendment currently in preparation90 would introduce a mechanism – in 
line  with  Czech  case  law  –  to  counter  “overtly  obstructive  requests  for  information”.  The 
amendment would allow the public body to require an advance payment to be made to cover 
the costs associated with extensive information retrieval. This could be an obstacle for access 
to  detailed  information  held  by  public  authorities.  In  addition,  concerns  have  been  raised 
during  the  country  visit  about  reports  of  public  authorities  refusing  to  provide  access  to 
information and challenging the claims in front of the courts91.  

While journalists are considered to be safe from any physical harm, verbal insults and 
threats  against  them  are  not  unknown  in  political  discourse.  The  Council  of  Europe 
Platform to promote the protection of journalism and the safety of journalists92 registered no 
alerts  in  Czechia  in  2019  and  2020.  MPM  2020  also  considers  the  area  of  journalistic 
profession,  standards  and  protection  to  be  at  low  risk.  However,  it  is  noted  that  “verbal 
insults, defamation of and threats towards journalists have become a common part of political 
discourse for both populist and right-wing parties”93 and individual politicians94. It should be 
also noted that imprisonment – up to one year, and as a subsidiary sentence – is among the 
envisaged sanctions for defamation95. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Czechia  has  a  bicameral  parliamentary  system  of  government96  with  a  directly  elected 
President. Legislative proposals can be submitted by a member of the Chamber of Deputies, a 
group of members of the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, the Government, or representative 
bodies  of  higher  self-governing  regions97.  The  Constitutional  Court  can  carry  out  ex-post 
constitutional  review.  In addition  to  the justice system, the Ombudsperson’s Office and the 
civil society play a role in the system of checks and balances.  

Conducting  impact  assessments  and  consulting  stakeholders  are  established  practices 
for enacting legislation. A legislative proposal can originate from the Chamber of Deputies 
(a  deputy,  or  a  group  of  deputies),  the  Senate  (only  as  a  whole),  the  Government  and  the 
regional  councils.  The  proposal  also  includes  an  explanatory  memorandum,  which  has  to 
assess the current legal situation, explain the need for new regulation, describe the expected 
economic  and  financial  impacts  and  clarify  the  compliance  of  the  proposal  with  the 
constitutional order, international treaties and with the obligations arising from membership 
in  the  European  Union.  Impact  assessments  are  required  for  every  legislative  proposal 

89   Act No. 106/1999 Col. 
90   The  amendment  is  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  of  the  Parliament  of  the  Czech  Republic,  Chamber  of 

Deputies, Print No. 633, awaiting discussion at first reading.  

91    Information received in the context of the country visit  and pointed out also by the 2020 Media Pluralism 

Monitor.    

92   Council of Europe. Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.  
93   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor.  
94   Including statements by the President of the Republic. In this context, it should be recalled that as indicated 
by  the  Council  of  Europe  Recommendation  2016/4,  “Member  States  should  put  in  place  a  comprehensive 
legislative  framework  that  enables  journalists  and  other  media  actors  to  contribute  to  public  debate 
effectively and without fear”. 

95    Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2019), Decriminalisation of Defamation.  
96   Composed of the lower chamber, the Chamber of Deputies (Poslanecká sněmovna) and the higher chamber, 

the Senate (Senát Parlamentu České republiky).  

97   Art. 41 of the Constitution. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
prepared  by  the  Government,  as  well  as  for  any  regulation  where  substantive  costs  to 
businesses,  administrations  and  citizens  are  expected.  Legislation  proposed  by  Members  of 
Parliament and local and regional authorities is not subject to regulatory impact assessments. 
The  Government,  which  prepares  the  vast  majority  of  primary  legislation,  established  a 
number  of  advisory  and  working  bodies  that  represent  experts,  stakeholders  or  other 
concerned  groups98.  Despite  this  comprehensive  framework,  the  civil  society  stakeholders 
consulted have expressed concern as regards an allegedly missing consulting obligation and 
the lack of an effective follow-up to the consultations conducted99. The Constitutional Court, 
Supreme  Court,  Supreme  Administrative  Court  and  the  Prosecutor  General’s  Office  are 
consulted in cases where a draft proposal is related to their areas of competence.  

Efforts  to  further  increase  the  transparency  of  the  legislative  process  are  ongoing. 
Access  to  Government  and parliamentary documents  is  already possible through  a range of 
online  tools100.  Furthermore,  a  project  is  ongoing  to  establish  an  ‘eCollection’  and 
‘eLegislation’101  portals,  which  would  enable  easier  control  and  participation  in  the 
legislative process. The completion date is planned at the end of 2020.  

Measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have been subject to judicial review. 
The Government declared a state of emergency on 12 March 2020. The state of emergency 
lasted  until  17  May,  after  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  twice  agreed  to  its  extension102.  The 
government resolution declaring the state of emergency due to the outbreak of Covid-19 and 
several  Government  measures  and  extraordinary  measures  taken  by  the  Ministry  of  Health 
have  been  subject  to  judicial  review  by  the  Municipal  Court  in  Prague,  by  the  Supreme 
Administrative  Court  and  by  the  Constitutional  Court103.  The  constitutionality  of  the 
government declaration of the state of emergency was upheld as well as, in most cases, the 
challenged  extraordinary  measures.  The  Municipal  Court 
in  Prague  annulled  four 
measures104, which triggered subsequent legislative adaptations by the Government.  

The Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsperson) defends the rights of individuals vis-à-
vis public authorities and promotes good governance standards. Czechia does not have a 
National Human Rights Institution105. There is an Ombudsperson which is independent in a 
formal and material sense and is separate from the three branches of government. The office 
of the Ombudsperson is set up by law and is not embedded in the Constitution. The main task 

98   Website of the Government, https://www.vlada.cz/en/pracovni-a-poradni-organy-vlady/.   
99    E.g. contribution from the Czech Helsinki Committee  for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.   
100 These tools include ODok,  https://www.odok.cz/,  which enables circulation of documents between central 
state  administration  bodies,  an  electronic  library  of  the  legislative  process  (eKLEP,  https://apps.odok.cz/), 
which encompasses all prepared pieces of legislation and even some related documents such as comments 
and regulatory impact assessment reports, the  websites of the  Chamber of Deputies and the Senate though 
which documentation related to all legislative proposals, online broadcasts of the meetings of both chambers 
as  well  as    stenographic  records  from  Chamber’s  and  Senate’s  meetings  and  minutes  from  meetings  of 
Committees are accessible. 

101  More information about the project can be found at https://www.mvcr.cz/clanek/esbirka-a-elegislativa.aspx . 

The project is co-funded by EU funds.  

102 The state of emergency can be declared by the Government for up to 30 days and can be further extended 

only with the approval of the Chamber of Deputies. Constitutional Act No. 110/1998, Arts. 5 and 6. 

103  E.g. decisions of the Municipal Court in Prague  no. 14 A 41/2020 of 23 April 2020 and no. 10  A 35/2020 – 
261 of 7 May 2020, decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court of 4 June 2020, no. 6 As 88/2020 – 44, 
of  21  May  2020,  no.  5  As  138/2020  -  80,  8  May  2020  no.  Nao  48/2020  –  149    and  decision  of  the 
Constitutional Court of 22 April 2020, no. Pl. ÚS 8/20.  

104  Municipal Court in Prague (2020), Judgment No. 14 A 41/2020, 23 April 2020.  
105  Recommendations  to  establish  an  NHRI  have  repeatedly  been  made  to  Czechia  in  the  UN  Universal   

Periodic Review (UPR) and are supported by Czechia.   

13 

 
 
                                                 
of the Ombudsperson is to assist persons in cases where the conduct of public authorities is 
either unlawful or goes against the principles of a democratic state and good governance, by 
conducting inquiries and recommending actions to remedy the situation. The Ombudsperson 
does  not  have  a  decision-making  power  and  the  outcomes  of  their  inquiries  are  not  legally 
binding106.  Additionally,  the  Ombudsperson  has  received  the  mandate  of  Equality  Body, 
National  Monitoring  Mechanism  under  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Rights  of 
Persons  with  Disabilities,  National  Preventive  Mechanism  under  the  United  Nations 
Committee against Torture and as monitor of forced returns107.  

There is a practice of organising debates on the justice system in the Senate. The Senate 
organises conferences and debates on topics related to the justice system, which provide an 
opportunity  for  senators  to  debate  the  issues  concerning  the  justice  system  and  policy 
solutions. The most recent conference took place in November 2019, when the Constitutional 
and  Legal  Committee,  in  cooperation  with  the  Supreme  Court,  organised  an  international 
conference  on  the  ‘Efficiency  and  Quality  of  the  Czech  Judiciary:  Evaluation  and 
Perspectives’. 

There is a vibrant and diverse civil society but the pressure on certain types of NGOs is 
rising. The space for civil society is considered open108 and civil society participate actively 
in support of democracy, integrity of public administration and independence of justice and 
prosecution109. Nevertheless, civil society organisations, in particular in the area of migration 
and  gender  issues,  are  facing  a  rising  animosity  of  some  segments  of  society  and  some 
political parties110.  

106  Act no. 349/1999 Coll. on the Public Defender of Rights.    
107  State of the Rule of Law in Europe. Reports from National Human Rights Institutions, p. 64.  
108  Rating  given  by  CIVICUS;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed,  

repressed and closed. 

109  CIVICUS,  22  July  2019,  Politicians  continue  to  undermine  critical  media  in  the  Czech  Republic.  Mass 
protests persist. CIVICUS, 15 January 2020, Citizens call for PM’s resignation in anti-government protests; 
press freedom in decline. 

110  Input from Czechia for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 33. 

14 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law report 

can be found at (COM website). 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2019),  Decriminalisation  of  Defamation. 
https://cmpf.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/decriminalisation-of-defamation_Infographic.pdf. 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor. 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.  

CEPEJ (2020), Study on the functioning of the judicial systems in the EU Member States. 

Chamber of Bailiffs of the Czech Republic, Statistical overview. https://statistiky.ekcr.info/statistiky.  

CIVICUS  (15  January  2020),  Citizens  call  for  PM’s  resignation  in  anti-government  protests;  press 
freedom  in  decline.  https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2020/01/15/citizens-call-pms-resignation-
anti-government-protests-press-freedom-decline/.  

CIVICUS  (22  July  2019),  Politicians  continue  to  undermine  critical  media  in  the  Czech  Republic. 
Mass  protests  persist.  https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2019/07/22/Politicians-continue-to-
undermine-critical-media-in-the-Czech-Republic-Mass-protests-persist/.  

CIVICUS,  Monitor  tracking  civic  space:  Czech  Republic.  https://monitor.civicus.org/country/czech-

republic/. 

Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (2018), Country 
against  Corruption.  

report  on 
https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReviewGroup/
ExecutiveSummaries/V1808272e.pdf.  

the  United  Nations  Convention 

implementation  of 

Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, decision of 22 April 2020, Pl. ÚS 8/20. 

Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, decision of 22 April 2020,  Pl. ÚS 8/20. 

Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, decision of 6 February 2014, I. ÚS 3271/13. 

Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – Czech 

Republic. https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/czech-republic. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2016), Recommendation CM/REC(2016)4 Ministers on 

the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors. 

Council  of  Europe:  European  Commission  For  Democracy  through  Law  (Venice  Commission) 
(2010), Report on the independence of the judicial system part I: the independence of judges, CDL-
AD(2010)004. 

Council  of  Europe:  European  Commission  For  Democracy  through  Law  (Venice  Commission) 

(2016), The Rule of Law Checklist, CDL-AD(2016)007. 

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2019),  Council  Recommendation  of  9  July  2019  on  the  2019 
National  Reform  Programme  of  Czechia  and  delivering  a  Council  Opinion  on  the  2019 
Convergence Programme of Czechia, OJ 2019/C 301/03. 

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  judgment  of  19  November  2019,  AK,  joined  cases 

C‑ 585/18, C‑ 624/18 and C‑ 625/18. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 22 December 2010, DEB, C-279/09.  

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 25 July 2018, LM, C‑ 216/18 PPU. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 6 October 2010, Orizzonte Salute, C-61/14. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 9 July 2020, Land Hessen, C-272/19. 

15 

 
 
Czech  Bar  Association  (2020),  Contribution  from  the  Czech  Bar  Association  for  the  stakeholder 

consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

Czech  Government  (2013),  Departmental  internal  anti-corruption  framework  program,  Government 

resolution No. 752 of 2 October 2013. 

Czech Government (2018), Amendment of the Act on the Supreme Audit Office.  

Czech  Government  (2018),  Government  Programme  Statement.  https://www.vlada.cz/cz/jednani-

vlady/programove-prohlaseni/programove-prohlaseni-vlady-165960/.  

Czech 

Government 

(2018), 

Lobbying 

bill. 

https://www.psp.cz/sqw/text/tiskt.sqw?O=8&CT=565&CT1=0.  

Czech  Government  (2019),  amendments  to  Act  No.  549/1991  Coll.,  On  court  fees  and  related 

materials. https://apps.odok.cz/veklep-detail?pid=KORNBFWH26LU.  

Czech Government (2019), amendments to Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on Courts and Judges, and related 

materials. https://apps.odok.cz/veklep-detail?pid=ALBSBBACDB5R.  

Czech Government (2019), amendments to Act No. 7/2002 Coll. on Proceedings in Matters of Judges, 
https://apps.odok.cz/veklep-
related 

materials. 

and 

Prosecutors 
Bailiffs 
detail?pid=ALBSBBAD2VD2.  

and 

Czech Government (2019), Anti - Corruption Action Plan 2020.  

Czech  Government  (2019),  draft  reform  of  the  Act  No.  283/1993  Coll.,  on  the  Public  Prosecutor's 

Office and related materials. https://apps.odok.cz/veklep-detail?pid=KORNBD9J6ZWU.  

Czech  Government 

(2019),  RIA 

report 

to 

the  amendment  of  Act  No.  31/2019. 

https://www.psp.cz/sqw/text/tiskt.sqw?O=8&CT=71&CT1=0#prilohy.  

Czech  Government  (2020),  Evaluation  of the  implementation  of the  measures  set  out  in  the  Action 

Plan against Corruption for 2019.  

Czech Government (2020), Input from Czechia for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

Czech Government, Government concept of the fight against corruption for the years 2018 to 2022.  

Czech  Helsinki  Committee  (2020).  Contribution  from  the  Czech  Helsinki  Committee  for  the 

stakeholder consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

Directive  (EU)  2018/1808  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  November  2018 
amending  Directive  2010/13/EU  on  the  coordination  of  certain  provisions  laid  down  by  law, 
regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media 
services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities. 

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the 

protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, OJ L 305, 26.11.2019. 

Directorate  General  for  Communication  (2019),  Special  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 

towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

ENHRI (2020) State of the Rule of Law in Europe. Reports from National Human Rights Institutions. 

http://ennhri.org/rule-of-law-report/.  

European Commission (2018, 2019, 2020), EU Justice Scoreboard.  

European  Commission  (2019),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  Member  States  have  taken  the  necessary  measures  in 
order to comply with Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating 
corruption in the private sector, COM(2019)355 final.  

European Commission (2020), Country report Czechia, SWD(2020) 502 final. 

16 

 
 
European Court of Human Rights (2001), judgment of 19 June 2001, Kreuz v. Poland, 28249/95. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights  (2001),  judgment  of  2  October  2001,  Stankov  v.  Bulgaria,  no. 

29221/95 and 29225/95. 

European Court of Human Rights (2005), judgment of 26 July 2005, Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. 

Poland, 39199/98. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights  (2006),  judgment  of  24  May  2006,  Weissman  and  Others  v. 

Romania, 63945/00. 

European Court of Human Rights (2011), judgment of 26 July 2011, Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu 

v. Romania, 9718/03.  

European Parliament, Resolution on the reopening of the investigation against the Prime Minister of 
the Czech Republic on the misuse of EU funds and potential conflicts of interest, 2019/2987(RSP).  

Government Council for the Coordination of the Fight against Corruption (2019), Minutes of the 21st 
meeting held on 2 October 2019. https://korupce.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Z%C3%A1znam-
z-21-jedn%C3%A1n%C3%AD-RV-konan%C3%A9ho-dne-02.10.2019.pdf.  

GRECO  (2018),  Third  Evaluation  Round  -  Second  Compliance  Report  on  the  Czech  Republic  on 

Incriminations (ETS 173 and 191, GPC 2).  

GRECO (2019), Fourth Evaluation Round preventing corruption in respect of members of Parliament, 

judges and prosecutors – Interim compliance report, Czech Republic.  

Ministry  of  Justice  (2018),  Final  report  of  the  Regulatory  Impact  Assessment,  Amendments  of  Act 
Law). 
Col. 

No. 
https://www.psp.cz/sqw/text/tiskt.sqw?O=8&CT=71&CT1=0#prilohy.    

(Insolvency 

182/2006 

Ministry  of  Justice  (2020),  Czech  Justice  System 

in  2019:  Annual  Statistical  Report. 

https://www.justice.cz/documents/12681/719244/Ceske_soudnictvi_2019_vyrocni_stat_zprava.doc
x/d5bc0218-e4a9-40d2-99c7-26016974fd0b.   

Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic (2020), Czech Justice System in 2019: Annual Statistical 

Report. 
https://www.justice.cz/documents/12681/719244/Ceske_soudnictvi_2019_vyrocni_stat_zprava.doc
x/d5bc0218-e4a9-40d2-99c7-26016974fd0b.   

Municipal Court in Prague, decision of 23 April 2020, 14 A 41/2020.  

Municipal Court in Prague, decision of 7 May 2020, 10 A 35/2020 – 261. 

OECD  (2019),  Czech  Republic's  Phase  4  Follow-up  Report  on  the  progress  made  by  the  Czech 

Republic to implement the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.  

Parliament  of  the  Czech  Republic  (2019),  Parliamentary  print  565/0,  part  no.  1/4,  Government 
proposal for an Act on Lobbying. https://www.psp.cz/sqw/text/tiskt.sqw?O=8&CT=565&CT1=0.  

Prosecutor General (2019), Letter to the Minister of Justice with comments on the amendments to the 
process. 
electronic 

Public 
https://apps.odok.cz/veklep-detail?pid=KORNBD9J6ZWU.  

Prosecutor’s  Office  Act, 

legislative 

library 

the 

of 

Prosecutor General’s Office (2019), The Prosecutor General remarks on the discussion of comments 
on the Public Prosecutor's Office Act. http://www.nsz.cz/index.php/en/tiskove-zpravy/2414-nejvyi-
statni-zastupce-komentuje-projednavani-pipominek-k-zakonu-o-statnim-zastupitelstvi.  

Reporters without Borders, Czech Republic. https://rsf.org/en/czech-republic.  

Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic, decisions of 27 April 2006, 4 Aps 4/2005, of 

21 May 2008, ref. no. 4 Ans 9/2007. 

Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic, decisions of 4 June 2020, no. 6 As 88/2020 – 

44.  

17 

 
 
Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic, decisions of 21 May 2020, no. 5 As 138/2020 – 

80.  

Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic, decisions of  8 May 2020 no. Nao 48/2020 – 

149. 

Transparency International (2020), 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index.  

Transparency  International  Czech  Republic  (2020),  Contribution  from  Transparency  International 

Czech Republic for the stakeholder consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

UN  Office 

on  Drugs 

and 

Crime, 

goAML 

(Anti-money-laundering 

system). 

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/global-it-products/goaml.html. 

Union of Public Prosecutors (2019), comments on the amendments of the Public Prosecutor's Office 
Act.  https://www.uniesz.cz/pripominky-unie-k-ministerskemu-navrhu-na-zmenu-zakona-o-statnim-
zastupitelstvi/.   

Union of Public Prosecutors (2019), Complete wording of the Union's comments on the amendments 
https://www.uniesz.cz/wp-

to 
content/uploads/2019/07/P%C5%99ipom%C3%ADnky-LK-USZ-novela-ZSZ.rtf.  

Prosecutor's 

Office. 

Public 

Act 

the 

the 

on 

United  Nations  Human  Rights  Council.  Universal  Periodic  Review 

–  Czechia. 

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/czindex.aspx.  

Virtual country visit to Czechia in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

18 

 
 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to the Czech Republic  

The Commission services held virtual meetings in June 2020 with: 

International Press Institute Czech Republic  

  Anti-Corruption Council of the Government 
  Association of Journalists 
  Chamber of Bailiffs 
  Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting 
  Czech Bar Association 
  Financial Analytical Office 
  Frank Bold – Reconstruction of the State 
 
  National Organised Crime Agency of the Czech Police  
  Ombudsman 
  Prosecutor General’s Office 
  Supreme Administrative Court 
  Supreme Audit Office 
  Supreme Court 
  The Endowment for Independent Journalism 
  Transparency International Czech Republic 
  Union of Judges 
  Union of Public Prosecutors 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches  
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

19