March 26, 2010
Protože Magistrát hl. města Prahy odmítá uznat svá pochybení a přijmout ochráncem navržená opatření k nápravě, volí ochránce zveřejnění informací o jeho jednání a názorech jako formu sankce podle zákona o veřejném ochránci práv.
March 19, 2010
March 18, 2010
March 3, 2010
Zástupkyně ochránce ukončila šetření a vydala závěrečné stanovisko s návrhem opatření k nápravě ve věci postupu krajských úřadů, příp. Magistrátu hlavního města Prahy při rozhodování o udělení registrace nestátním zdravotnickým zařízením, v nichž by byla zdravotní péče poskytována porodními asistentkami, a to včetně provádění fyziologických porodů. Šetření vedla z vlastní iniciativy na základě informací z médií, které vzbuzovaly vážné pochybnosti o jednotném postupu příslušných správních orgánů vůči žadatelům o registraci.
March 1, 2010
In connection with the amendment to the Social Services Act effective since August 1, 2009, the Defender together with the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs issued recommendations concerning sheltered housing.
February 10, 2010
Based on news in the media, the Defender opened an inquiry into the procedure of the children’s home in Uherský Ostroh and the Brno-north municipal office.
November 26, 2009
The deputy of the Defender inquired into the steps of the District Mining Authority in Ostrava and the Czech Mining Authority in Prague and found maladministration inter alia in that the author of the expert reports which served as underlying documents for decision-making by the authorities was biased.
September 30, 2009
September 4, 2009
Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
August 18, 2009
July 15, 2009
The deputy of the Defender closed an inquiry against the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting concerning sanction proceedings against Czech Television due to broadcasting the coverage “Já, muslim” (or “I, Muslim”) in the Infiltrace (or Infiltration) programme on October 7, 2005, on Czech Television’s second channel.
June 23, 2009
The Defender closed an inquiry into the procedure and decision-making of the Office for the Protection of Competition with respect to the architectonic competition for the design of a new building of the National Library. According to the Defender’s findings, the Office dealt three times with the case. It initially concluded that it was not substantively competent to review acts of the National Library (the contracting authority) within the design competition and discontinued the proceedings initiated by HŠH architekti, s.r.o. It stated that a public contract, i.e. acts of a contracting authority taken in a tender procedure, was not concerned. Two months later HŠH architekti, s. r. o. advised the Office of the risk of awarding the public contract on the basis of the results of the relevant design competition. The Office responded to this by stating that it had found no reasons for commencing administrative proceedings since the procedure of the National Library was subject to an exemption from the application of the Public Procurement Act as a result of applying the rules of international organisations. Although both the National Library and the winner of the competition had pointed to application of the exemption from the application of the Public Procurement Act already in the first procedure, the Office had not dealt with this matter at that time. The Office began to act in the matter for the last time on the basis of a query from the Ministry of Culture, which requested the Office provide a standpoint and recommendation for further steps. Within the aforementioned inquiry, the Office obtained an expert report on the nature of the UNESCO rules and the instructions of the International Union of Architects. It followed from the report that the exemption could not be applied, which was subsequently confirmed by the European Union. The Office therefore advised the Ministry of Culture and the National Library of the inapplicability of the exemption from the Public Procurement Act and informed them that “the winning design was chosen at variance with the procedure envisaged by the law”. It recommended annulment of the competition. The Office did all this through a mere letter rather than an administrative decision and it simultaneously advised the Ministry and the management of the Library that it did not have the power to directly review the legality of “design competitions”. It also pointed out that “…this standpoint cannot replace or predetermine the work of the Office in administrative proceedings that may be initiated by the Office…, if the Office obtains findings on illegal steps of the contracting authority in the tender procedure for the design work or some other related contract”.
June 23, 2009
The Defender opened an inquiry on his own initiative into the matter of minor children whose mother had been detained in April 2008 and taken into custody. The authority for the social and legal protection of children (hereinafter the “ASLPC”) had lodged a proposal for ordering preliminary injunctions, because care of the minor children had to be ensured after the mother was detained by the Police. The Defender found maladministration in the procedure of the ASLPC as it had failed to sufficiently ascertain, directly in connection with the lodging of the proposal for ordering preliminary injunctions, whether a member of the wider family would be able to ensure care of the children (the Defender found no documents in this respect in the file – an official record of an interview with the mother after her detention was also missing).
June 23, 2009
A complainant contested the procedure of the Regional Health Authority of the South Moravian Region, which had permitted the Road and Motorway Directorate to operate a source of noise exceeding safe limits (a part of the D1 motorway). The permission had been issued until June 30, 2009, one of the conditions being completion of noise barriers on both sides of the motorway by the end of 2008. Noise measurement was to take place after the completion of the barriers and the results were to be submitted by the end of validity of the permission at the latest. However, the construction of the barriers did not even commence by the above-specified deadline.
June 23, 2009
On her own initiative, the deputy of the Defender decided to inquire into the manner of handling used railroad ties. She had learned from several complaints that although contaminated by a number of hazardous substances, the ties were sold to private individuals for reuse. Within the inquiry, the deputy requested statements from the Czech Environmental Inspectorate and the Ministry of the Environment on the nature of the material and the results of inspection findings.
June 23, 2009
The case was concerned with the rejection of an application for the granting of a visa for a stay up to 90 days (a so-called tourist visa) to the complainant’s Egyptian friend. The Defender inquired into the case, found maladministration and requires in his final statement, in addition to other remedial measures, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: