Memory of JUDr. Jiří Nykodým: Personality of constitutional and healthcare law, who judged without political patronage

On Friday, emeritus constitutional judge Jiří Nykodým, one of the best who ever worked at the Supreme Court, died. I had the honor of meeting him personally and learning from his knowledge of healthcare and constitutional law. I could remind you of his role in the judgments on the "cancellation of superstandards", on the reimbursement decree, on medical fees - but for the sake of understanding what the real value of the work of JUDr. Nykodýma, it is best to read his legal sentences, because the media shorthand does not allow to capture the balance and erudition with which he made decisions and wrote opinions, which in many cases would deserve to be carved in stone. Always perfectly in line with the Constitution, no activism, but always with a deep understanding of what health policy is really about. About patients, about health professionals, about what actually complicates their access to care and fair remuneration for their work. About the incalculable value of the free public healthcare system guaranteed by Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which we have in the Czech Republic and which other poor countries, including our "western models", do not have. But also, unfortunately, about the interests of political and financial groups to break or rob this system, against which "his" Constitutional Court was a protection for a long time.

JUDr. Unfortunately, Nykodým was a constitutional judge for only one period - 2003-2013.Miloš Zeman - President of the Czech Republiche proposed it for the next period as well, but it did not pass the Senate. It is a lasting shame of the senators of that time (the sin of the left) that they rejected Jiří Nykodým, not at all for professional reasons, but for purely political reasons - they did not like that he judged equally, fall to whom fall.

Instead of him, others went to the Constitutional Court who, unfortunately, in later times proved to be flexible at a time when they should have been firm and defended the Constitution against the current government (see, for example, the shameful, lackey-justified sanctification of reducing the valorization of pensions), or firmly closed their eyes to injustice towards health professionals and patients where they should have kept them open (see the refusal to cancel the pro-corruption system of reimbursement decrees, pharisaically justified, that it is said to be a matter for politicians and they can do whatever they want with the health care system, the constitution is not a constitution). That would be with JUDr. Nicodemus did not become a judge. Or, if so, at least the majority of the plenary would earn a polite but professionally completely devastating opposing opinion, which would become part of the medical law textbooks.

If you'll forgive me for a personal digression here: it was the last-mentioned findings of the ÚS that pushed me from teaching law to politics and demonstrations in squares. Because how to defend the law and teach students about it, when even the Constitutional Court turns aside and leaves health policy in the lap of lobbyists inspired by political will? Then the whole law is like that biblical salt that does not add salt, and there is no choice but to also enter the political struggle. Despite the fact that it is not my own and I would rather respectfully interpret binding opinions of constitutional judges to students, health professionals, patients and politicians with the erudition and authority that JUDr. Jiří Nykodym.

Allow me to conclude this unartificial obituary with a reflection (not only) on the Constitutional Court. The functioning of state institutions in a democratic establishment stands and falls with the trust of citizens. This can neither be bought nor forced through rubber-stamp criminal clauses or defamation of opponents. It can only be earned through the honest work of those who decide on the rights of others - whether they are judges, politicians, high-ranking officials or directors of public institutions. And the conviction of every citizen that even if a decision was made against him, it was done so after hearing all opinions and in accordance with the constitutional rules. If I am worried about our country, I am most worried about an internal collapse, an implosion of trust, which may lead to a disgusted citizenry rejecting democracy in favor of some dictator or "enlightened occupier" from the outside, who promises them more security and guarantees for their personal lives than dubious and sold-out institutions. It is a disease that has affected more than one democratic state. The best medicine against it is the work of educated and courageous people like JUDr. Jiří Nykodym. Let us wish him to have as many followers as possible in the high institutions of our state, at the Constitutional Court and elsewhere. Honor to his memory!