Judge Zuzana Kubů against the law? Nymburk judiciary under fire of questions

The story begins almost normally. The family breaks up, the parents separate, the children stay in the original home, and one of the parents moves out to prevent the conflict from escalating further. But then something happens that Czech family law certainly does not consider banal: children are unilaterally moved tens of kilometers elsewhere, without the consent of the other parent. The regional court in Prague will later explicitly mark this step as illegal. At the same time, the Civil Code speaks clearly: the child's place of residence and the choice of school are important matters on which parents should decide together. The Constitutional Court repeatedly reminds that an illegally created state must not start working in favor of the person who created it. And the European Court of Human Rights, in the Novák v. Czech Republic judgment of April 9, 2026, warns against courts de facto consolidating a similar situation over time. Nevertheless, in Nymburk, an increasingly urgent question arises: how many jurisprudence still needs to be written before their principles can actually be used?

Judge of the District Court in Nymburk Mgr. Zuzana Kubů has a file on her desk, which is no longer an academic debate between lawyers. It is about a child, a father and years of life that cannot be returned. In October 2025, the Regional Court in Prague determined the father's actual residence in Nymburk as the place of handover, as the family home in Krchleby was empty at the time. He explicitly rejected the handover at the railway station and the attempt to adapt the mode of communication to train traffic. The criterion was clear: the child should not be dragged between properties, the place of transfer should correspond to the actual residence of the father, and the consequences of the illegal transfer of children should not be transferred to him.

But time is running out. The father returns to his permanent residence in the summer of 2026. The house is no longer empty. The actual residence changed precisely in the fact that the Regional Court considered decisive. What will the District Court in Nymburk do? It does not change the place of delivery. And even stranger is the reasoning. An argument that was previously rejected - the train - suddenly returns as an argument for not changing anything. Sometimes train transport is unreasonable, other times convenient. One is decided by the actual residence, the other is decided that the father "has an apartment" in Nymburk. Once the court states that the children were moved to Teplice without the consent of the father and that the last school agreed upon by the parents is in Nymburk, the second time the practical consequences of this move turn into a reason for its continued preservation. As late as July 16, 2026, the same district court stated that the last school agreed upon by the parents is ZŠ Nymburk, and the residence of the minors remains in the Nymburk district at least until the decision on the matter itself.

Then comes the language of court decisions. The father is described as obstructive. His procedural procedure and warning of the inaction of the court for abuse of rights. He is credited with the intention to delay the proceedings. When he returns to his long-term permanent residence, there is wording about "settling scores" through the child and that he is not to "benefit" from his actions. And this is where the problem ceases to be just a question of one contested legal opinion. It becomes a question of the yardstick by which the court measures both parents.

How can the illegal change of the children's residence by one parent and the legal change of the other's own residence be put on the same level of value? Where is the best interest of the child, which § 866 of the Civil Code places at the very center of decision-making? Where is the explanation required by finding IV. ÚS 147/23, according to which the court must convincingly show why a specific solution is the best for a specific child at the place of transfer? Where is the respect for findings I. ÚS 3399/23 and II. ÚS 901/26, which emphasize that a unilaterally created state should not bring an advantage to the person who created it, and that judicial protection must be real, not just paper?

This is not to say that every adverse decision by a judge automatically means bias or disciplinary wrongdoing. That would be too simple. It is something much more serious: a pattern in which the arguments change but the result remains the same. The unlawfully created state does not move towards correction, but continues to settle. And the longer it takes, the more comfortable it is to say: the child is already used to it, the child already goes to school there, the child already travels this way. But this is precisely what Strasbourg is warning against. Time is not neutral in family matters. Time is power. And sometimes it works in favor of whoever created the factual state first.

And so comes the uncomfortable question the public is allowed to ask: who is controlling this? Who ensures that the independence of the judge does not become a practical inviolability from responsibility? Who would put the district court's resolution, the decision of the Regional Court in Prague, the findings of the Constitutional Court and the judgment of the ECtHR next to each other and start asking why the same rules are used differently each time? The president of the court? Regional court? Department of Justice? Punitive drafter?

Here another question arises: Does he cover or guide the judge? If control mechanisms see repeated inconsistencies, are warned about them again and again, and nothing fundamental changes, a legitimate public question arises as to whether the control system is working as it should. Because sometimes the biggest problem isn't the mistake itself. The biggest problem is the silence of the institutions that are supposed to be an insurance policy.

A scandal does not start with one judge making a wrong decision. Mistakes happen. The scandal begins when the same problems are repeated, there is jurisprudence of the higher courts, its principles are known to the court, but the practical mechanism does not change. When "best interests of the child" becomes a catchphrase instead of a real legal test. When an illegal state becomes a comfortable reality. And when a parent requesting compliance with the decisions of higher courts begins to be described in court texts as a problem rather than as a bearer of the right to family life.

How many more findings of the Constitutional Court have to come down? How many judgments from Strasbourg? How many unsold weekends? How many years of childhood must disappear between the numbers of acts, appeals and other proposals before someone says enough?

The judiciary must be independent. But independence is not impunity, it is not immunity from criticism, and it is certainly not the right to stop explaining one's own contradictions. The Civil Code also applies in the guardianship hall in Nymburk. The findings of the Constitutional Court are not recommended reading. ECtHR judgments are not literary commentaries. And the decisions of a higher instance are not papers that can be discarded the moment their logic ceases to be useful.

If the Czech rule of law is to mean anything, it must be ready to protect children and family life not only in big words, but in these small, everyday decisions. If the Civil Code, the Regional Court, the Constitutional Court or the warning from Strasbourg are not enough today, then the main question is no longer what a father still has to do. The main question is what has to happen in order for the Czech judiciary to finally wake up and start consistently demanding that the law applies even where decisions about children are made on behalf of the republic.

Resources:

1. Act No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code, especially § 866, § 867, § 876 and § 877.e-Collection  

2. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC. 2024. Find sp. stamp I. ÚS 3399/23 of 28 February 2024.NALUS – database of decisions of the Constitutional Court[online]. Brno: Constitutional Court.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC. 2024. Resolution no. stamp IV. ÚS 582/24 of 16 October 2024.NALUS – database of decisions of the Constitutional Court.  Brno: Constitutional Court.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC. 2026. Find sp. stamp II. ÚS 901/26 of 24 June 2026.NALUS – database of decisions of the Constitutional Court[online]. Brno: Constitutional Court.

5. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. 2026.Novák v. the Czech Republic, application no. 6656/24, Chamber judgment, 9 April 2026. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights.