Supervision that fails: Repeated defects of the public prosecutor in Nymburk

The public prosecutor is often referred to in the media as "the master of the preliminary proceedings". However, this term does not correspond to the reality of Czech law. The Criminal Code does not recognize any "master of proceedings". On the contrary – it imposes on the public prosecutor the obligation to supervise the observance of legality in the preliminary proceedings. In other words, it is not an authority that has the power to make decisions without control, but a body that is supposed to be the guarantor of legality.

It is this role, however, in the specific case of the state representative Mgr. Michal Rylich from the District Attorney's Office in Nymburk raises fundamental doubts.

This is not a single excess or a single error. On the contrary, the available documents reveal a recurring pattern of procedures that have common features: non-examination, absence of justification, ignoring submissions and de facto resignation to the exercise of supervision.

The basic problem is the quality of decision making. In the case under consideration, a notice was issued which contained internal contradictions in the time data. Such a deficiency is not a mere administrative inaccuracy. He questions the very factual basis of the decision.

Even more serious, however, is the absence of justification. The public prosecutor states that the elements of a criminal offense have not been fulfilled, without stating any specific legal considerations. What is missing is an analysis of the facts, an evaluation of the claims, and an explanation of why individual facts are considered legally irrelevant.

Such a decision is not factually reviewable. And a decision that cannot be reviewed cannot even be considered a legitimate exercise of public authority.

Another problem is the repeated ignoring of new factual circumstances. In the course of the proceedings, the pleadings were supplemented with specific claims and evidentiary proposals. However, the public prosecutor's reaction remains the same: without analysis, he states that the new facts cannot change the previous conclusion.

Such a procedure does not act as the result of a legal assessment, but as a predetermined decision, which is subsequently only formally confirmed.

The issue of supervision is absolutely key. According to the law, the public prosecutor is supposed to check the legality of the police's actions. In the present case, however, the decision feels more like a mechanical adoption of police conclusions.

If the authority that is supposed to control ceases to control, there is a fundamental distortion of the system. Surveillance turns into formality and legality in a declaration with no real substance.

The seriousness of the whole situation lies in the fact that the defects described do not occur in isolation. On the contrary, they tend to repeat themselves. Non-reviewability, lack of justification and ignoring submissions appear repeatedly within one procedure and create the image of a systematic problem.

It is this repeatability that is key. Individual misconduct can be explained by error. However, the repeated pattern indicates a failure in the way the function is performed.

At the same time, Nymburk is not a place without context. In the past, it has already become the scene of protest actions directed against public authorities, including the prosecutor's office. For example, the 2010 police crackdown on a father's rights activist shows that public-institutional tensions are not new. (ČTK, 2010).

At the same time, it is a body that also deals with sensitive cases of public interest, for example issues of conflict of interests of municipal politicians (Czech justice, 2017). Even higher demands should be placed on the quality of his decision-making.

However, if defects of a fundamental nature repeatedly appear in specific proceedings, these signals cannot be ignored.

The State Prosecutor's Office is not just a procedural institution. It is a pillar of trust in the rule of law. If his decisions seem unexamined, formal and without real argumentation, public trust logically disappears.

At the same time, it is not a matter of one case. It is a question of whether the system can respond to repeated defects in its own ranks.

At this point, this is no longer just about the actions of one prosecutor. It is the response of the system as a whole.

Will senior prosecutors be able to review this practice and hold them accountable?

And will the Ministry of Justice be willing to intervene where defects accumulate that can no longer be considered accidental?

Or will this case be one of those that went unanswered - thus confirming that the control mechanisms only work formally?

Source:

1. CTK (2010)The police in Nymburk arrested fathers' rights activist Fiala.Novinky.cz, 04/09/2010. Available from:https://www.novinky.cz

2. Czech Justice (2017)Spouses on the city council voting in their favor? Nymburk is dealing with a criminal complaint due to a conflict of interest. Czech Justice, 17/02/2017. Available from:https://www.ceska-justice.cz

3. District Prosecutor's Office in Nymburk (2024)Mandatory Public Prosecutor's Office Information. Available from:https://verejnazaloba.cz