The state has messed something up. The ombudsman revealed it. Now there is silence around the minister's answer

The story began with one decision. Dismissal from the service of the Police of the Czech Republic. But what was supposed to be the end of one service chapter gradually turned into a much bigger story. The story of what happens when a person begins to question why he was fired, who actually reviewed his objections and why some questions get lost between the ministry, official answers and the office of the public defender of rights. First came the resistance. Objections. Incentives. Notice of contradictions, unresolved evidence, procedural defects and other doubts. The Ministry of the Interior had the opportunity to deal with them substantively. Instead, there was an answer that, according to the Ombudsman's later assessment, did not hold up. And this is where the plot fundamentally breaks down. The public defender of rights took over the matter, investigated the procedure of the Ministry of the Interior and on May 19, 2026, issued a conclusion that certainly cannot be described as a cosmetic complaint. According to him, the ministry acted contrary to the principles of good administration, specifically the principles of predictability and efficiency, when settling the initiative. According to the defender, some objections were not settled at all. Others only formally. The Ministry's response was not proportionate to the content of the initiative, was not sufficiently convincing and did not provide an adequate legal and factual view of the contested problems. This is when one would expect a turning point. The Ministry received a clear call. The Minister of the Interior was supposed to explain within thirty days how he was dealing with the detected errors and to communicate what corrective measures he had taken. At the same time, the Public Defender of Rights pointed out that if the reaction is not sufficient, the next step will come: a final opinion and a proposal for remedial measures. It seemed that things were finally going somewhere. And indeed something happened. On June 16, 2026, the Minister of the Interior replied. The Ministry itself later confirmed that its statement was delivered to the Public Defender of Rights on June 18. So the document exists. There is the minister's answer. There is a reaction to the ombudsman's specific criticisms. There is a document that should show whether the ministry has acknowledged the wrongdoing, whether it has corrected it and whether it has changed its approach. And then comes the weirdest part of the story. When the person concerned asks the Ministry of the Interior what the minister wrote and what measures he took, he does not get the content of the answer. Basically, the ministry will say: the minister has replied, we sent the letter, the ombudsman has received it - and ask him about other things. The document will be created by the Ministry of the Interior. The document will be sent by the Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry knows what is in it. But he will send the person whose case the whole document concerns for information elsewhere. So they turn to the public defender of rights. But even there, there is still no clear answer that would close the whole story. Was the minister's response sufficient? Were corrective measures taken? Was the case closed? Will a final opinion be issued? What exactly did the ministry write? And time is running out. This is no longer just a single document. An absurd circle begins to be born. The ombudsman accuses the ministry of misconduct. The ministry answers to the ombudsman. The citizen asks the ministry what the answer was. The ministry will refer him to the ombudsman. The citizen asks the ombudsman. And instead of a clear end comes more waiting. It is difficult to imagine a more graphic illustration of how a control mechanism can turn into an administrative labyrinth. At the same time, there is nothing complicated at the beginning. There is a specific thing. A specific person. Specific dismissal from employment. Specific objections. Specific conclusions of the public defender of rights. The minister's specific answer. So what is preventing its content from being made available? If the ministry has recognized wrongdoing and corrected it, it should be in its own interest to say so. If it has adopted methodological or organizational measures, why not disclose them? If the minister has explained that the ombudsman's conclusions are not agreed with, why not present this argument? If the public defender of rights considers the minister's reaction sufficient, why not clearly state that the matter is closed? And if he does not consider it sufficient, why is the next procedure prolonged? The longer the answer is not forthcoming, the more room there is for doubt. Not because silence alone proves the illegality of the original dismissal. Such a conclusion would go beyond what has been authoritatively established so far. But the silence and shifting of responsibility raises another, no less serious question: how can a citizen trust the control system, if he cannot learn the result of the control? At the same time, the public defender of rights was not a passive spectator. He himself demanded the minister's answer. He himself called the ministry's procedure contrary to the principles of good administration. He himself determined the next possible course of action. Therefore, the main question today is not whether there is a letter. It exists. It is not a question of whether the minister responded. He reacted. It is not even a question of whether the ombudsman found fault with the department's procedure. He found. The question is much simpler: so what happened next? And why does a person whose service relationship and professional life are the subject of the whole story have to learn this so difficult? It is at this point that the original dispute turns into a story about the state itself. About whether the control of public power really means something, or whether it is mine

Resources:

Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on free access to information. Available from:Act No. 106/1999 Coll.

Act No. 349/1999 Coll., on the public defender of rights and on the defender of children's rights. Available from:Act No. 349/1999 Coll.

Act No. 361/2003 Coll., on the employment relationship of members of the security forces, especially § 193. Available from:Act No. 361/2003 Coll.

Judgment of 19 October 2011, No. 1 As 107/2011-70, No. 2493/2012 Coll. NSS - Right to information: exclusion from the right to information; opinions of the obliged entity. Available from:NSS judgment 1 As 107/2011-70

PUBLIC PROTECTOR OF RIGHTS. 2026.Memorandum of Understanding dated May 19, 2026, file no. stamp 1643/2026/VOP/ENJ, no. KVOP-24118/2026. Brno: Public Defender of Rights. In the document, the defender states that the Ministry of the Interior acted contrary to the principles of good administration, namely predictability and efficiency, when dealing with the initiative.