Formalism instead of rights protection: A critique of the ombudsman procedure

It should have been a standard initiative addressed to the public defender of rights. However, the result opens up a much broader question: what happens when the institution that is supposed to protect the rights of the individual refuses to assess the matter objectively? The case, which is now being discussed in the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, shows the tension between the formal interpretation of powers and the actual protection of fundamental rights.

The essence of the dispute is not the court decision itself. The petitioner turned to the ombudsman regarding the procedure of the state court administration authorities in handling a complaint under the Law on Courts and Judges. He argued that his complaint had not been properly investigated and that a key procedural objection – a violation of adversarial proceedings – remained unaddressed. In other words, it was not how the court decided, but how the complaint about its procedure was handled.

The core of the objection was the claim that the court made a decision without the applicant receiving the opposing party's statement, and thus without the opportunity to comment on it. At the same time, such a situation is not a marginal procedural issue. It goes to the very heart of a fair trial – the right to be heard and the equality of participants. This principle is repeatedly confirmed by the Constitutional Court, which emphasizes that the party to the proceedings must have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with all the documents that may influence the decision and react to them.

However, the Office of the Public Defender of Rights rejected the initiative. In her statements, she repeatedly stated that the matter falls under the decision-making activity of the court and therefore cannot be reviewed. At the same time, this conclusion remained even after the applicant explicitly added that his initiative is not directed against the decision, but against the procedure of the state administration of the courts in handling the complaint. At the same time, according to Act No. 349/1999 Coll., this area is explicitly included in the ombudsman's remit.

The fundamental problem lies in the fact that, although the ombudsman correctly summarized the content of the objection in his communication – i.e. that the court decided to respond to the opposing party's statement without the possibility of the participant – he did not assess this objection further. Instead, he referred to an ongoing cassation appeal, stating that only a higher court could consider the issue. However, this creates a paradoxical situation: the control institution recognizes the existence of a potentially serious procedural defect, but at the same time refuses to examine whether the state administration bodies of the courts acted lawfully when handling the complaint.

Another level of dispute lies in the procedural procedure of the Office of the Public Defender of Rights. According to the law, the initiative must either be legally postponed, or an investigation must be initiated. In this case, however, the communication took place in the form of a message that referred to previous opinions without specifically addressing the individual claims of the applicant. The result is a situation where it is not clear what factual circumstances were actually evaluated and on the basis of which considerations the decision was made.

The tension is further intensified by the fact that the applicant has documented the existence of a previous complaint and its handling by the court's state administration authorities. Nevertheless, the ombudsman's conclusion remained unchanged. This raises the question of whether all the documents were really taken into consideration, or whether a pre-selected legal framework prevailed, which led to the rejection of the case without its merits.

The final phase of communication closes the situation even more sharply. The public defender of rights said that he fully agrees with the conclusions of his office, that he cannot evaluate the court's procedure, and at the same time announced that he will no longer respond to further submissions. Such termination of communication is formally possible, but in the context of the above, it raises doubts about the fulfillment of the principles of good governance, especially transparency and reviewability.

The whole case thus raises a wider question: where does the protection of rights afforded by the ombudsman end and where does the space where the individual must rely solely on judicial review begin? The ombudsman is not another instance of the judicial system, but his task is to check administrative procedures and draw attention to their defects. However, if it refuses to judge even those cases that concern the state administration of the courts and have an obvious constitutional dimension, its role is inevitably narrowed.

The applicant therefore turned the matter over to the Chamber of Deputies, which is the body responsible for monitoring the activities of the Ombudsman. The initiative points to repeated refusals, incorrect legal qualification of the matter and the absence of substantive review. At the same time, it is not just an individual dispute, but a question of the functioning of the institution, which is supposed to be the guarantor of the protection of individual rights against public power.

Whether this is isolated misconduct or a wider problem in the approach to claims handling will now be subject to further assessment. What is certain, however, is that the case reopens a key question of the modern rule of law: who controls the comptroller if he fails to fulfill his role.

Source:

1. Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (1994)Finding sp. stamp III. ÚS 84/94. Collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court. Available from:https://nalus.usoud.cz

2. Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (2025)Finding sp. stamp II. ÚS 1309/24. Available from:https://www.usoud.cz

3. Czech Republic (1999)Act No. 349/1999 Coll., on the public defender of rights. Available from:https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz

4. Czech Republic (2002)Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on courts and judges. Available from:https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz

5. Supreme Administrative Court (2009)The judgment of stamp 2 As 66/2009-53. Available from:https://www.nssoud.cz