Office of the Ústí Region against the courts? The story of the year that raises serious questions

It is a strange feeling when, after several years of litigation, one finds out that the biggest opponent is no longer the other parent or the complexity of the family conflict, but the state itself. Not because the state decided against him - he has the right to do that. But because the state authorities begin to give the impression that they are making decisions according to their own rules, which are beginning to deviate dangerously from the legal ones.

The story surrounding the school transfers of two minor children from Nymburk gradually turned into a study of the functioning of public administration. At the center of it is no longer just the question of which school the children should go to. The main question became something much more serious: does the principle that administrative authorities are bound by the law and court decisions still apply in the Czech Republic, or can they create their own legal reality?

The whole thing started with a parental disagreement. § 876 and § 877 of the Civil Code clearly state that the parents should solve important matters of the child, including the choice of school, together. If they do not agree, the court decides. It is not a recommendation or a methodical instruction. It's the law.

Nevertheless, administrative acts on the transfer of children were issued. This was followed by the renewal of administrative proceedings, their interruption, further submissions, new evidence and other court decisions. It would seem logical that the administrative authorities will carefully examine each new document and respond to the development of the case. But instead, the impression is that a strange mechanism has been created: the more decisions and evidence are added, the less willing they are to deal with them.

In its judgment No. 6 As 170/2025-37, the Supreme Administrative Court recalled several important principles. He confirmed that after a final decision on the transfer, the child not only acquires the right to attend the new school, but is also obliged to fulfill compulsory school attendance there. At the same time, he stated that if the school is aware of the parents' disagreement, it cannot decide on this issue without the consent of both parents or without a civil court decision. This is not an academic consideration. It is an interpretation of binding law.

Nevertheless, the regional office claims in its later statement that the decision to transfer imposes on the child only the possibility to attend school, not the obligation. Such a conclusion is not just a legal controversy. It raises the fundamental question of how the office interprets the binding judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court. If an administrative body reaches a legal opinion contrary to that of the highest administrative court, it should very convincingly explain why. A mere statement is not enough.

Equally disturbing is the approach to procedural obligations. Requests for injunctions, new documentary evidence, notices of further court decisions should all be dealt with due process. However, instead of clear procedural steps, there is an informal communication, which leaves open the question of whether the submissions were decided in the manner envisaged by the administrative rules.

Another problem is that the administrative body draws a sharp line between public law and parental responsibility. He claims that the issue of schooling is primarily an exercise of parental responsibility. However, it is parental responsibility that is regulated by the Civil Code, and it is precisely this that stipulates that the court decides in the event of a fundamental disagreement between the parents. Therefore, an administrative decision cannot replace the lack of parental consent or create a situation that has not yet been sanctioned by a civil court.

The legal order is not a collection of isolated islands. The Civil Code, the Education Act, the Administrative Code, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and international conventions form one whole. If the administrative body interprets the school law in a way that practically neutralizes the rules of parental responsibility, a legitimate question arises as to whether there is a violation of the unity of the legal order.

The dimension of international law is no less important. The Czech Republic is bound by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights. The best interest of the child is not a political slogan. It is a legal principle that must be taken into account in every decision-making by public authorities. The European Court of Human Rights repeatedly emphasizes that the state must not, by its inaction or delays, contribute to the stabilization of the disputed state of affairs just because time is passing. If administrative proceedings remain interrupted for a long time, new evidence is not materially dealt with and the factual situation meanwhile becomes more and more difficult to change, it is quite legitimate to ask whether the state really fulfills its positive obligations.

Equally important is the question of responsibility. Czech law is not based on the principle that an official is never responsible for anything. Civil Service Act, Labor Code, Act No. 82/1998 Coll. on the state's responsibility for damage caused in the exercise of public authority, possibly punitive or disciplinary mechanisms - all of these represent tools to ensure that the exercise of public administration is not unfettered. If it turns out that the administrative body has indeed acted illegally, the only answer cannot be to state that "a mistake was made". The rule of law stands on personal and institutional responsibility.

At the same time, it is not about finding the culprits at all costs. The public administration must be able to legally argue and defend its interpretation of the law. However, it must be prepared to bear the consequences if the courts conclude that its action was illegal. Without this responsibility, the rule of law becomes a system in which citizens are obliged to obey the laws, while the public authority bears virtually no consequences for disobeying them.

The case from the Ústí Region therefore exceeds the boundaries of a single family dispute. It touches on the fundamental question of the functioning of democracy. Who really decides the content of the law? Parliament, the courts and the Constitution, or an administrative authority that creates its own interpretation and sticks to it regardless of further developments?

Again, the courts will give the final answer to this question. After the decision, when it turns out that the administrative body really did not respect the law, binding jurisprudence or procedural rules, this does not end with the mere exchange of a few official letters. The rule of law is not only about the right of citizens to seek justice. It is also about the duty of public authorities to accept responsibility for their own mistakes. It is precisely in this that one will know whether the rule of law is a real value or just a phrase in official documents.

Source:

Supreme Administrative Court. 2026. Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of February 11, 2026, No. 6 As 170/2025–37. Brno: Supreme Administrative Court. Available from:NSS decision search engine  

Communication of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 104/1991 Coll., on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Prague: Collection of Laws.

Resolution of the Presidium of the Czech National Council No. 2/1993 Coll., Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Prague: Collection of Laws.

European Court of Human Rights. 2025. M.P. and Others v. Greece, Application No. 2068/24, Judgment of 9 September 2025. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights. Czech commentary available from:Selection of ECtHR decisions for judicial practice - Supreme Court

High Court. 2026. Selection of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights for judicial practice. Brno: Supreme Court. Available from:Selection of ECtHR decisions for judicial practice