Justice without control? Manipulation of files in Prague without punishment

Cases from recent years show a disturbing trend: the Municipal Court in Prague, an institution that is supposed to be a guarantor of legality and trust in the judiciary, repeatedly appears in the context of doubts that fundamentally undermine this trust. This is not about isolated excesses of individuals, but a cumulative failure on multiple levels - decision-making, management and system. What today appear to be individual cases are beginning to show signs of a structural problem.

The most obvious example is the case of the Criminal Chamber 7 To, in which judges Richard Petrásek and Alexander Sotolář work. In a publicly described case, there was a situation where the court's written decision contained the opposite result to what was recorded in the voting record. Such a discrepancy is not a mere procedural defect – it is an interference with the very identity of the judicial decision. The court's decision is defined by the result of the senate's vote. If this result is not respected, judicial decision-making ceases to be predictable and controllable.

Even more serious is the finding that the original envelope containing the voting record should have been removed from the file and replaced with another. Such intervention cannot be trivialized as an administrative error. The voting protocol is a protected element of the judicial process that ensures the authenticity of the decision. Once its integrity is compromised, the legality of the entire proceedings is compromised. The photo documentation of the file, which revealed the differences between the original and the new cover, is an extremely strong piece of evidence that casts doubt on the official version of events.

The senate's responsibility 7 This is essential in this context. Senate President Richard Petrásek was reprimanded for misconduct, which represents a formal recognition of his responsibility. However, this reaction is completely disproportionate to the seriousness of the act. A reprimand can be used to address minor deficiencies, not situations where the authenticity of the court decision and the integrity of the file are in question. By closing the case in this way, it has effectively been procedurally "locked" as further disciplinary action is now precluded.

The role of judge Alexander Sotolár remains formally unproven, however, it cannot be evaluated in isolation. His prior disciplinary actions for tampering with the record and the fact that he acted as judge-rapporteur in this case with a pre-arranged decision create a context that fundamentally undermines confidence in the transparency of the decision-making process. This is not proof of guilt, but an accumulation of circumstances that cannot be ignored.

However, the chairwoman of the Municipal Court in Prague plays a key role. Her decision to qualify such a serious misconduct as a minor deficiency that can be resolved by a reprimand represents a fundamental failure in the performance of the state administration of the court. The president of the court has the duty not only to react, but to react adequately. If the interference with the integrity of the court file is evaluated as a trivial misconduct, a situation with far-reaching consequences is underestimated. It was this decision that prevented the case from being subjected to standard disciplinary proceedings.

Even more seriously, similar problems arise outside the criminal agenda. In the insolvency proceedings conducted at the Municipal Court in Prague, spol. GARPO s.r.o., the repeated non-standard procedures of the judge are objected to, which, according to the submission of the creditors' representative, systematically disadvantage one party to the proceedings. Specifically, it is about repeatedly requiring a power of attorney that is already part of the file, setting unreasonably short deadlines and creating procedural obstacles that can be perceived as purposefully making it more difficult for the parties to the proceedings to exercise their rights. Such conduct by itself may not always mean a direct violation of the law, but cumulatively it creates an environment that is contrary to the principle of equality of the parties to the proceedings and the impartiality of the court.

This background is essential precisely in that it confirms that this is not an isolated excess of one chamber, but a wider problem of procedural culture. If procedures that raise doubts about impartiality, transparency and equality of arms are repeated in different agendas, it is appropriate to talk about a systemic failure, not about individual mistakes.

The role of the Ministry of Justice also fits into this structure. It did take advantage of the statutory violation complaint and obtain a reversal of the defective decision, thereby correcting a specific injustice. However, his role does not end there. The Ministry is the central body of the state administration of courts and has the duty to create conditions for the proper administration of justice. If it concedes that an interference with the integrity of the judicial record is concluded by a mere reprimand, and then invokes res judicata, it effectively resigns from its systemic role.

The whole situation thus shows the signs of a triple failure. The Senate 7 It failed in the very exercise of justice. The presiding judge failed to respond adequately to this misconduct. The Department of Justice failed in systemic correction when it failed to prevent such a serious matter from being procedurally "consumed" without the possibility of a more severe penalty.

The consequence is not just a specific procedural defect, but a deeper erosion of trust in the judiciary. If a party to the proceedings gets a reasonable suspicion that the court file can be changed, that the procedural rules can be bent and that such behavior will remain without an adequate sanction, the judiciary is no longer perceived as a guarantor of justice. And that is the most serious aspect of the whole thing - not the individual misconduct, but the loss of confidence in the system as such.

Source:

DRTINA, M., 2026.A disgrace to justice. The lawyer who exposed the scams in court described the details. Czech justice, 1 April 2026.

DRTINA, M., 2026.Chachry with the file in the case of the Ukrainian woman. The judge tore open the envelope, Minister Tejc intervened. Czech justice, 30 March 2026.

DIMUN, P., 2026.Cachry with envelopes at the Prague court: the judge manipulated the file, the Supreme Court intervened.INFO.CZ, 27. 3. 2026.

EPOCH TIMES, 2026.The judge illegally replaced the envelope with the judges' votes in the file. Epoch Times, 6. 4. 2026.

SUPREME COURT, 2026.Decision on a complaint for a violation of the law (file no. 4 Tz 2/2026).