When Judicial Oversight Fails: The Ministerial Oversight Crisis

In a state of law, there is a simple rule: every public power must be auditable. The courts make decisions independently, but their administrative functioning – that is, the state administration of the courts – is subject to executive control. This control in the Czech Republic is carried out by the Ministry of Justice, specifically its Department of Judicial Supervision. On paper, this is a key mechanism to ensure that the judicial system operates efficiently, transparently and without delay.

However, practice shows a disturbing question: what happens when supervision ceases to really supervise?

In recent years, there have been repeated cases of submissions addressed to the Ministry of Justice ending in an almost identical fashion - a formal confirmation of the correctness of the judicial officers' course of action without any real review. The three recent cases under files MSP-1008/2025-ODKA-DOH, MSP-197/2026-ODKA-DOH and MSP-198/2026-ODKA-DOH are not an isolated episode. On the contrary, they show a recurring pattern of responses that raises a fundamental question: is this an individual failure or a deeper institutional problem?

According to Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on courts and judges, the Ministry of Justice is the central body of the state administration of courts. This means that it is supposed to supervise the administrative functioning of the judicial system and to deal with complaints about delays or inappropriate behavior of judicial officials.

However, this supervision has a clear limit: it must not interfere with the decision-making activity of the courts. In other words, the ministry may not review judgments or dictate to courts how to make decisions.

The problem arises when this principle is interpreted so broadly that it effectively paralyzes any control. In the responses of the department of judicial supervision, the argument that the procedure of the president or vice president of the court in handling a complaint cannot be reviewed repeatedly appears. However, this interpretation leads to a paradox: the Ministry simultaneously claims that review is not possible, and at the same time confirms the correctness of the court's procedure.

Such an argumentation is not only logically contradictory, but above all creates the impression that supervision is reduced to a mere administrative confirmation of an already made conclusion.

Another recurring feature of these responses is their almost formulaic nature. Submissions containing extensive legal arguments tend to be settled with a few general sentences that avoid specific objections. Instead of a detailed legal assessment, a standard formula appears: the complaint was handled by an authorized person, within the specified period, and the ministry cannot interfere in the matter.

For the average citizen, this means only one thing - his arguments are not really considered. The answer is there, but the factual review is not.

At the same time, such a procedure conflicts with the basic principle of public administration: the decision of a public authority must be reviewable and properly justified. Without this, the right to protection from public authority becomes an empty declaration.

In this context, the question of responsibility naturally arises. The answers that provoked criticism are signed by the head of the department of judicial supervision, JUDr. Ivana Borzová. So a simple explanation is offered: it is a failure of the individual.

However, such an interpretation would be too convenient.

If the same type of argument is repeated on several different occasions and over a long period of time, it cannot be explained solely by personal misconduct. Rather, the repetition of the same argumentative pattern suggests that it is a regular practice of the department.

In other words, the problem is probably not just the individual, but the institutional setting of the department as such. It could be a lack of methodology, an absence of internal control, or an unwritten rule to minimize conflicts with the court system by handling complaints as formally as possible.

If that were the case, it would not be an individual error, but a systemic one.

At the same time, such a model has wider implications. If the supervision of the state administration of the courts is carried out only formally, a dangerous gap is created in the system. Court presidents handle complaints, the ministry automatically confirms their progress, and there is no further control instance.

The result is a mechanism that resembles a closed circle.

At the same time, the opposite logic should apply in a state of law: the higher the power exercised by the authority, the stronger must be the control over its procedure.

Therefore, the discussion about the activities of the Department of Judicial Supervision should not end with the question of whether a particular letter was written better or worse. It is a deeper problem - whether the state is really fulfilling its role as a guarantor of a functional state administration of justice.

If current practice proves to result in formal complaints being handled without real review, deeper institutional changes will need to be made. These may include a clearer methodology for handling complaints, strengthening internal control or opening a wider public debate on how the state administration of the courts should be controlled.

Without such a debate, there is a risk that the supervision of justice will remain just an administrative formality.

And the rule of law cannot afford the luxury of formal justice.

Source:

1.CZECH REPUBLIC. 2002.Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on courts, judges, assessors and the state administration of courts and on the amendment of certain other laws.Collection of laws of the Czech Republic. Available from:https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2002-6

2.The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. 2005.Finding Pl. ÚS 60/04 – Remedy against delays in court proceedings.2005-04-28. Available from:https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/judikat/uscr/pl-us-60-04

3.The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. 2004.Finding I. ÚS 319/04 – Delays in court proceedings.Available from:https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/judikat/uscr/i-us-319-04

4.Friday, W. 2021.A Right to Have One’s Case Heard within a Reasonable Time: Delays in Proceedings in the Czech Republic and Poland.Utrecht Law Review, 17(3), s. 46–60.

5.Kocourek, J. and Záruba, J. 2004.Courts and Judges Act; The Public Prosecutor's Office Act.2nd Edition. Prague: C.H. Beck.