Criminal machinery in Nymburk: Who watches over those who make decisions about us?

How many times does a participant in administrative proceedings have to point out procedural defects before someone starts to seriously question whether it is a systemic problem? How many complaints, objections, motions, requests for audits and calls for review have to go through the bureaucratic mill before the convenient formula that "the action of the administrative body was found to be correct" ceases to be used? The case of misdemeanor proceedings conducted at the Municipal Office in Nymburk raises an unpleasant question: is the misdemeanor agenda carried out here as a public service, or as a closed administrative mechanism that checks itself, excuses itself and assures itself that everything is fine?

It follows from the available documents that objections of procedural defects, selective evaluation of evidence, violation of the right to defense and non-standard handling of documents from other proceedings were repeatedly raised against the procedure of the misdemeanor agenda department. In one of the submissions, it is explicitly objected that the complaint was not properly settled and that the core of the matter is the fact that an official should have looked into the file in one administrative proceeding and used documents from it in another proceeding, without it being clearly explained which documents were taken over, to what extent, for what purpose and on the basis of what legal title. That's no small thing. This is exactly the type of situation that should set off red lights in public administration.

The administrative file is not an official drawer into which an official can reach according to mood, need or procedural convenience. The file is a procedural space protected by law. It contains the defense of the participants, personal information, procedural strategy, proposals for evidence, apologies, objections and often sensitive information of third parties. If such material is used in other proceedings, it must be clear who did so, why they did so, to what extent they did so and on the basis of which legal authority. That is why a request was submitted for an audit of access to the file, identification of the persons who accessed the file, identification of the documents taken over and notification of the legal title of further data processing.  But the municipal office in Nymburk is silent.

Even more seriously, similar objections do not appear in isolation. Another filing describes the suspicion of the systematic use of documents from other, factually unrelated proceedings, including documents containing personal data and data originating from service and disciplinary materials of the police or other proceedings, also of a confidential nature. Therefore, the matter reached the Office for the Protection of Personal Data, which qualified it as a complaint for suspicion of unauthorized disclosure of personal data, systemic linking of unrelated administrative proceedings, violation of the principle of purpose limitation and data minimization.

The mere filing of a complaint does not mean that the authority has committed an illegality. But repeated, specific and objectively structured complaints can no longer be dismissed as "participant dissatisfaction". The public administration does not want to overwhelm the participant with a lot of paper. It is to handle the matter legally, verifiably, impartially and convincingly. If the participant repeatedly claims that the office uses documents from other proceedings, that it is not clear who worked with the files, and that the legal title of such a procedure is not obvious, the answer cannot be an official shrug.

The question of the right to defense is particularly alarming. In one of the responses to the call, it was explicitly stated that the representative cannot appear at the oral hearing, because he has an action by the Police of the Czech Republic on the same day, and that participation in both actions is physically impossible due to the distance and time continuity. Nevertheless, the procedure was subsequently objected to in the proceedings, where key personal evidence should have been presented without the full participation of the defense. This is extremely sensitive in misdemeanor proceedings, which have a punitive nature. Oral proceedings are not stage sets. Examining a witness is not a formality. The opportunity to ask a question, respond to an answer, and expose a contradiction is at the very heart of a fair trial.

Another level of the problem is the evaluation of the evidence. In one document, it is recalled that, according to the claimant's claim, the administrative body should have considered his statements only "marginally", this is how the administrative body wrote it itself, which is marked as a contradiction with the principle of material truth, the obligation to evaluate evidence individually and in relation to each other, and the participant's right to be heard. And here we get to the bottom line: the administrative body must not select only those evidences that fit it to a pre-prepared conclusion. He must not turn the procedural defense into an ornament. He must not say to himself: the testimony which supports the inference of guilt is credible; the objection challenging it is redundant, hypothetical, or obstructive.

The worst thing about similar cases is not one mistake. A mistake can happen. The worst is the chain of defects and the subsequent institutional self-defense. The participant objects to the defect. The department head will handle the complaint without dealing with the objections in any way. The participant objects that the settlement is incomplete and unreviewable. A superior authority is requested to investigate. The issue of personal data protection comes into play. Initiatives, requests for audits, objections of bias are increasing. And the citizen has an increasingly strong feeling that he has found himself against an apparatus that does not respond to the essence of the matter, but only protects its own version of the process.

The objection of systemic bias describes the entire catalog of doubts: the repeated initiation of proceedings based on the same whistleblower's initiatives, the taking over and use of documents from other proceedings, the linking of administrative, insolvency, disciplinary and public law agendas, the use of procedural submissions of the accused as an agent of another person against himself, and the existence of an investigation by the Office for Personal Data Protection. These are extremely serious objections. Even if some are not confirmed in the end, they cannot be swept under the carpet without a convincing, concrete and verifiable answer.

And here comes the sharpest question: how qualified are the officials who decide on guilt, punishment, fines and interference with people's rights, if doubts about their knowledge of basic procedural rules repeatedly arise? How is it possible that in proceedings where decisions are to be made according to the principle of material truth, the impression of a selective reading of the file is created? How is it possible that the participant has to repeatedly explain the difference between reference and full-fledged evidence, between the right to comment on the documents and the right to be present at the hearing, between the legal use of the document and vague "knowledge from official activity"?

Offense proceedings are not an office sport. It is an administrative punishment. In it, it is decided whether the state will designate a person as a perpetrator of an illegal act. Whoever exercises this power must control procedural law not only formally, but practically. They must understand that legality is not an obstacle to driving speed, but a condition for it. He must know that the file is not a freely transferable package of information. They must understand that complaint is not insolence and advocacy is not obstruction.

If an official does not know the basic procedural limits, he should not make decisions about people. If he knows them and yet bypasses them, it's even worse. And if a manager repeatedly handles complaints in such a way that only the defense of his own department is dealt with instead of the substance, then the problem is no longer just on the desk of one clerk. It lies on the desk of the entire office.

Nymburk deserves a public administration that does not raise the question of whether the files are used as ammunition in further proceedings. Citizens deserve an office that answers concretely, not an office that hides behind procedural phrases. And the state must ask itself the question whether the people who decide on the guilt of others themselves sufficiently understand the rules according to which they have to decide. Because the moment an administrative body stops respecting the process, it doesn't stop being just annoying. It's getting dangerous.

Source:

HENDRYCH, Dušan et al., 2016.Administrative law. General part. 9. middle. Prague: C. H. Beck. ISBN 978-80-7400-624-1.

PRÚCHA, Petr, 2023.Administrative law. General part. 10th updated ed. Brno: Masaryk University.

SKULOVÁ, Soňa, POTĕŠIL, Lukáš, ŠROMOVÁ, Eva, MAREK, David et al., 2024.Administrative rules. Comment. 3rd ed. Prague: C. H. Beck.

VEDRAL, Josef, 2023.Administrative rules. Comment. 3rd ed. Prague: BOVA POLYGON.

WINTR, Jan, 2024.Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Comment. Prague: Wolters Kluwer.