Settlement of compensation claims

In the last quarter of 2011 the ombudsman completed all his investigations into ministries commenced on his own initiative on the topic of the settlement of compensation claims in compliance with Law No. 82/1998 Coll., the Liability for Damage Caused When Exercising Public Authority by a Decision or a Wrong Procedure Act and on the change to Czech National Council Act No. 358/1992 Coll., on Notaries and their Work Activities (Notarial Procedures), as subsequently amended.

Besides his investigations at the individual ministries (the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry for Regional Development, the Interior Ministry, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture), the ombudsman also held a working meeting attended by the Ministry of Justice, which in 2010 had complied with the Ten Rules of Good Practice for the Assessment of Compensation Claims the ombudsman had formulated. The aim of this meeting was to discuss the practices in use at the individual ministries, to eliminate contentious interpretations, and to discuss the methodical management of good compensation practice and the amendment to Law No. 82/1998 Coll. 

The ombudsman sees the preliminary compensation claim process as a process governed by public law, in accordance with the judicature of the Constitutional Court. Where the Ministry, when reviewing a claim, finds a wrong official procedure particularly stemming from inaction on the part of authorities, it should provide reasonable compensation voluntarily. Such a procedure is in line with the principles of good administration and is also economical, as it saves on unnecessary court costs. The ombudsman rejected the general representation of lawyers in dealing with claims for compensation in proceedings before the courts, particularly in cases of disputes based on claims of inaction as a form of improper official procedure.

Owing to the shortcomings found in various ministries with regard to the settlement of compensation claims and the lack of consensus on all contentious interpretations, the ombudsman decided to make a comprehensive report to the government and to furnish it with his own material in compliance with the provisions of § 22 and § 20 Paragraph 1 a) of the Public Defender of Rights Act. The ombudsman prioritised this procedure over the meetings with the individual ministries in which he had failed to find consensus, as in the case of inconsistent administrative practice they are only bound by a government resolution, something the ombudsman is trying to bring about.