Rule of law

Legal practitioners assessed the overall situation of the rule of law in the Czech Republic as good but fragile. They felt that the independence of the judiciary was guaranteed and that the general situation with regards to justice was better than in some neighbouring countries.

However they considered that a key point for concern was the pressure imposed by the executive power on the chief prosecutor, as it had the power to dismiss the mandate holder at any time. This situation was particularly problematic in the context of investigations of conflicts of interest at the top of the State. The previous chief prosecutor resigned because of such pressure and the Czech authorities had not yet amended the law to ensure full independence of the position of chief prosecutor, as recommended notably by the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). While they did not consider that the situation could be generalised, participants felt that judges in the highest Courts were more prone to pressure by politicians than normal ranking judges.

Participants pointed to a danger of state capture if high level cases of conflict of interests were not properly tackled. Such cases, combined with politicians' influence on the media and pressure on the highest level of the judicial system could also fuel a long term trend of erosion of public trust in the institutions. Law practitioners felt that, as in other countries, awareness on the rule of law and key principles like separation of powers amongst the general public was too low and would deserve more support. In their view, however, the "Million Moments for Democracy" movement showed a real sense of justice and a call for a fair and transparent political system in the population. 

A positive illustration of the importance of an independent judiciary was offered in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. Some citizens sued the State for disproportionate, unclear or unjustified legal decisions, which led the Supreme Court to cancel some decisions on this basis. Participants felt that 
there had not been enough general debate on decision-making in response to the crisis, nor consideration for some legitimate criticisms stemming from civil society. This, combined with the cancellation of some authorities' decisions by the judiciary as previously mentioned, contributed to a loss of confidence by the population in the authorities' capacity to offer the appropriate responses to the crisis. 

Another challenge raised by participants was law enforcement. One participant pointed to a lack of a unified case law system in the country and to a problematic inconsistency in the severity of decisions made by Courts depending on the geographical locations of the cases or the area of law. Within the field of construction law, many illegal acts were never prosecuted, whereas within the area of debt and foreclosure law, the law had been applied very stringently, which has particularly affected the low income population. This had led many people to fall into debt traps for not having been able to pay fines or debts and the subsequent accumulating interest, leading to the seizure of their properties.