When Oversight Fails: Ministry Covers Bailiffs Instead of Control

Execution proceedings belong to the most sensitive areas of the exercise of public authority. It impinges directly on an individual's property sphere, often with dramatic social consequences. That is why the law entrusts the Ministry of Justice with a fundamental role – to exercise state supervision over the activities of court bailiffs according to Section 7 of the Enforcement Code. This supervision is supposed to be a guarantee of legality, a corrective to excesses and a last resort for the protection of the parties to the proceedings. But the reality, as shown by the specific case of execution led by JUDr. Jiří Bulvas (registered stamp 146 EX 465/19), testifies to the exact opposite: supervision turns into a mere formality.

The case in which Mgr. Kateřina Skalková, director of the department of supervision and disciplinary agenda of the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic, is not exceptional because of what happened there, but because of how the Ministry of Justice reacted to it. Instead of a thorough review, what came is a notification that raises serious doubts about the quality and meaning of the supervision itself. The Ministry did not do the basic thing in it – it did not establish the facts. It did not request the execution file, did not verify the time course of actions, did not examine the specific procedure of the executor. Nevertheless, it came to the unequivocal conclusion that there was no doubt. Such a procedure is not supervision, but its simulation.

What is particularly alarming is the way the ministry is handling the legal argument. On the issue of objections to the order to pay the costs of execution (Section 88 of the Execution Code), the Ministry simply concludes that since the court decided on the objections, the executor acted correctly. This is both logical and legal nonsense. Indeed, the law does not only require that objections be forwarded, but that this be done properly and without unnecessary delay. However, the Ministry did not say a single word about this. In other words: it resigned its own control function.

Even more serious is the internal contradiction in the reasoning itself. The ministry states that the appeal was directed against the decision from the end of 2025, but at the same time claims that it was delivered to the executor already in March of the same year. Such a chronology is obviously impossible. If a public authority does not notice such an elementary contradiction, or even takes it into its decision, one cannot speak of the proper performance of public administration. In a rule of law, the non-reviewability of a decision is one of the most serious defects – and that is exactly what is at issue here.

In addition, the Department is operating on an incorrect interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure when it suggests that the executor examines the admissibility of the appeal. In fact, this power rests exclusively with the appellate court. Such an error is not merely an academic inaccuracy; this is a fundamental misunderstanding of procedural law, which has a direct impact on the assessment of the legality of the executor's procedure.

The overall picture is worrying. Instead of actively investigating possible violations of the law, the supervisory authority takes on the role of the executor's advocate. Instead of a substantive review, it offers a formal rejection. Instead of analyzing the facts, it provides general phrases. And finally, he "closes" the matter, saying that he will not proceed with further submissions unless they bring new facts. In other words: the authority that is supposed to protect legality sets a limit for itself, beyond which it will no longer exercise control.

Such an approach has wider implications. It undermines public confidence in the enforcement system as a whole. It reinforces the sense of powerlessness of litigants who find themselves between the bailiff and the state, which refuses to intervene effectively. And above all, it relativizes the very principle of the rule of law, according to which the exercise of public power must be controllable and reviewable.

The case of JUDr. Jiří Bulvas is not just an individual dispute about the costs of execution or procedural procedure. It is symptomatic of a deeper problem: the failure of institutional control. Here, the Ministry of Justice does not fulfill the role of guarantor of legality, but becomes a passive administrator of complaints. If supervision is to be truly effective, it must be material, not formal. It must be based on concrete findings, not assumptions. And above all, he must be willing to admit that even the executor can err.

Until this approach changes, there will be more cases like this. And with each one, not only the number of victims will increase, but also the erosion of trust in the legal system. Because surveillance that doesn't watch isn't just ineffective — it's dangerous.

Source:

1.Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic (undated)Performance of state supervision over executors. Available from:Performance of state supervision

2.Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic (undated)Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice in executions. Available from:Competence of the Ministry

3.Supreme Administrative Court (2018)Resolution of the extended Senate of the NSS dated 10 July 2018, No. 9 As 79/2016-41. Available from:NSS Decision 9 As 79/2016-41