VSZ in Prague: From a citizen to a complainer? When you point out mistakes, you become the problem

Why does the chief prosecutor refuse to answer the merits of the case? Why the senior state representative of the VSZ in Prague JUDr. In his notice, Tomáš Turek does not respond convincingly to the objections based on Article 36, paragraph 1 and Article 38, paragraph 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, Article 3 and Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, or Article 6, Article 8 and Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? And why do evaluative statements about the applicant appear in the official document instead of substantive legal polemics? Questions that arise when the whistleblower reads the notification of the Social Security Administration in Prague.

The rule of law does not mean that public authorities are infallible. They stand on something much more important – that every decision they make can be subjected to criticism, review, and that they respond to a legal argument with a legal argument. As soon as the personal characteristics of the person who draws attention to possible defects begin to appear instead of a factual discussion, the question arises as to whether the attention is not shifting from the essence of the problem to the person of the critic.

In a democratic legal state, the role of the public prosecutor's office is not only to defend legality in criminal proceedings. An equally important duty is to protect public confidence in the impartiality of the exercise of state power. Each prosecutor has considerable authority. That is why restraint, objectivity and convincing legal argumentation are expected from him. When an official document contains evaluation statements against the applicant, a legitimate question arises as to whether such a style of communication corresponds to the standards that can be expected from an authority for the protection of legality.

At the same time, the whole thing did not arise from a personal dispute. It is based on criminal proceedings concerning minor children, their procedural representation, the conditions of their interrogation and the right of parents to draw attention to possible procedural defects. These are not marginal questions. They affect the basic rights of children and parents and at the same time the quality of criminal proceedings itself.

If a party to the proceedings or a whistleblower objects that the appointment of a guardian was not sufficiently justified, that procedural motions relating to the questioning of minors were not dealt with, or that access to the file was restricted without proper justification, they should expect an answer based on the law, case law and convincing reasoning. This is how legal dialogue works.

But what if, instead, he receives an official document in which his arguments are labeled as a "convulsive effort" or "a querulous approach"? Such a wording may give the impression that the public authority has no legal arguments, therefore it no longer evaluates only the content of the submission, but also the person of the submitter. This is where the problem becomes bigger than a specific criminal case.

Article 36(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms guarantees everyone the right to seek protection of their rights from an independent and impartial body. Art. 38 paragraph 2 enshrines the right to comment on all evidence taken and to be heard. These are not empty declarations. Their purpose is to ensure that public authorities actually listen to legal arguments and deal with them in a way that stands up to professional debate.

The level of protection of children's rights is even more sensitive. Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration in all activities involving children. Article 12 then guarantees the child the right to be heard in a manner appropriate to his age and maturity. If the subject of the dispute is the questioning of minors, their procedural representation or protection against a possible conflict of loyalty, these international obligations cannot be waived just because a public authority holds a different legal opinion.

Likewise, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms protects the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for family life and the right to an effective remedy. It is legitimate to ask whether these rights are sufficiently reflected in a situation where substantial objections are rejected and at the same time attention is paid to the characteristics of the person who applies them.

The very use of the term "querulant" is a particular issue. Historically, the term was often used to refer to people who repeatedly criticized the government or the judiciary. However, not everyone who makes repeated complaints is a complainer. Repeated submissions may be the result of previous objections not being substantively resolved or new facts emerging. In a state governed by the rule of law, the intensity of the defense of rights in itself cannot be considered a reason to question the credibility of the applicant.

It is natural that the public prosecutor may come to the conclusion that the objections are not justified. This is part of the exercise of his authority. However, it is less understandable if evaluation statements about the person of the whistleblower appear alongside the legal assessment. These do not strengthen the authority of the decision, but, on the contrary, may raise doubts as to whether the boundary between substantive legal argumentation and personal assessment has not been crossed.

At the same time, it is not a question of the ego of one applicant. It's a matter of principle. Every citizen must be sure that if he draws attention to possible misconduct by the police or the public prosecutor's office, his submission will not be judged by the lens of whether it is "difficult", "persistent" or "questionable", but solely according to its legal content. Otherwise, a dangerous signal is created that a rigorous procedural defense may itself be perceived negatively.

The rule of law is not known by how it treats those who agree with its decisions. He is known by how he reacts to those who question his course of action. Public power does not acquire real authority by silencing criticism or labeling it excessive. He earns it by answering each legal objection convincingly, respectfully and without personal evaluations. This is precisely where the strength of a democratic rule of law lies - and it is precisely for this reason that it is legitimate to ask whether this principle has not been weakened in this particular case.

Source:

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

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

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). Available from:Council of Europe - European Convention on Human Rights[cit. 9. 7. 2026].

Act No. 283/1993 Coll., on the Public Prosecutor's Office. Prague: Collection of Laws. Available from:Law on Public Prosecutor's Office

Act No. 141/1961 Coll., on criminal court proceedings (penal code). Prague: Collection of Laws. Available from:Criminal Code