1 Introduction to Human Rights in the Czech Republic*
On 1 January 1993 the Czech Republic was established as an independent unitary state. This event marked the end of turbulent constitutional development.1 At the end of World War I, the First Czechoslovak Republic had been established on the ruins of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and between 1918 and 1938 it had built a functioning parliamentary democracy surrounded by countries that gradually shifted towards authoritarianism. After a period of occupation by Nazi Germany, Czechoslovakia was restored and became one of the founding members of the United Nations (UN). However, after a coup d’état of 1948 the Communist party led Czechoslovakia into an undemocratic rule lasting until 1989.2 The Communist regime, totalitarian in some respects, was characterised by systematic and massive human rights violations. Communist ideology was dominating the society. Opponents of the regime were persecuted.
In 1989 a non-violent change of government took place in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the ‘Velvet Revolution’. The new constitutional order was built on democratic principles, including a pluralist system of political parties and the protection of human rights and freedoms of individuals. A constitutional Act of 1991 stipulated that international treaties on human rights and basic freedoms duly ratified and legally binding to Czechoslovakia should be directly applicable and take precedence over municipal law. Thus, international human rights protection became a crucial point of reference with regard to issues of constitutionality.3
The protection of human rights plays a pivotal role in Czech constitution law. According to article 112 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms of 1991 forms an integral part of the Czech constitutional order. Those rights and freedoms are defined as ‘inherent, inalienable, non-prescriptible, and irrepealable’. The Charter is divided into different chapters covering fundamental civil rights; political rights; rights of national and ethnic minorities; economic, social and cultural rights; and the right to judicial and other legal protection. In principle, economic, social and cultural rights may be claimed only within the confines of the laws implementing the relevant Charter provisions.5
According to article 4 of the Constitution, fundamental rights and basic freedoms enjoy the protection of judicial bodies. According to article 83 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court, which is composed of 15 judges appointed by the President of the Republic for a period of ten years, is responsible for the protection of constitutionality. For this purpose, it evaluates whether statutes are in compliance with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. In this context, some international human rights treaties are an important point of reference. The Constitutional Court further decides on constitutional complaints by the self-governing regions against unlawful encroachment by the state and on constitutional complaints against final decisions or other encroachments by public authorities infringing constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights and basic freedoms.6 With a view to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), article 87 of the Constitution provides that the Constitutional Court decides on measures necessary to implement a decision of an international tribunal which is binding on the Czech Republic, in the event that it cannot be otherwise implemented.
After the Czech Republic in 2006 had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (op-cat), the functions of the national preventive mechanism in terms of the Optional Protocol are performed by the Public Defender of Rights. The Public Defender of Rights, who previously has been reviewing complaints from individuals harmed by the actions of public authorities, is authorised to undertake systematic preventive visits to places where people are or may be deprived of their liberty.9 Since 2009, based upon a new Anti-Discrimination Act,10 the Public Defender has been acting as a national equality body providing assistance to victims of discrimination.11 In 2017 the Public Defender was given the mandate to monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (crpd).12
The Public Defender of Rights already complies with many principles of a national human rights institution according to the Paris Principles. However, accrediting the Public Defender with the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institution Sub-Committee on Accreditation is still under consideration.13 In the government, it was the Minister for Human Rights and Equal
A major task for the Czech Republic is the integration of the Roma minority, combating racism and extremism.
2 Relationship of the Czech Republic with the International Human Rights System in General
From the perspective of the Czech legal system, four different levels of human rights protection are relevant: the universal level, the regional level, the level of European Union (EU) law and the constitutional level.
As for the relationship of the Czech Republic with universal mechanisms, the UN plays the major role. The Czech Republic was elected member of the UN Human Rights Council three times: for the 2006–2007 term, for the years 2011–2014 and 2019–2021. Recently, the Czech Republic presented its candidature for the period 2025–2027. The Czech Republic also actively participates in the Universal Periodic Review (upr). Its upr was held in April 2008, October 2012 and November 2017. In addition to its regular national reports, the Czech government submitted a mid-term report in 2015.
On 30 June 1993 the Czech Republic became a member of the Council of Europe. Besides the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) the country has ratified a number of crucial human rights documents14 and accepts regular monitoring exercised by conventional supervisory mechanisms, such
In 2015, after intense discussions involving political actors and civil society representatives, the Czech government adopted a new Concept of the Czech Republic’s Foreign Policy which defines human dignity, including human rights as one of three global goals.17 The Concept was, in relation to human rights, further developed by the Human Rights and Transition Promotion Policy Concept, which was adopted also in 2015. According to the Concept Czech foreign policy is based on the assumption that achieving human dignity, while a value of and in itself, also contributes to international security. Therefore, a policy of promoting human rights and democracy is fundamental to the safeguarding of human dignity. Czech foreign policy makes explicit reference to the principles of universality and the indivisibility of human rights. The Concept states that the promotion of human rights includes sharing the Czech experience of the transition to democracy and sustainable social market economy with transition countries and societies interested in this experience. Indeed, the promotion of democracy, human rights and transition represents one of the Czech Republic’s foreign policy priorities. Development cooperation shall contribute to the pursuit of the objective of human dignity in part by incorporating cross-cutting principles into its activities, such as good governance, environmental and climate friendliness, and respect for human rights.
The Concept further deals with multilateral activity in the field of human rights protection, within the frame of the unhrc and other UN bodies, the CoE, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (osce) and the International Labour Organisation (ilo). Also, the promotion of human rights within the EU shall play an important role. Among the thematic priorities of
Article 10 of the Constitution provides for the incorporation of international treaties into the legal order of the Czech Republic, including international human rights treaties. In a judgment of 2002, the Czech Constitutional Court clarified that some international human rights treaties have the rank of constitutional law, and that the constitutional status of those human rights treaties cannot be changed by any constitutional amendment.18 The Constitutional Court is using international human rights treaties as a reference criterion for judgments on the constitutionality of laws and legal provisions.19
3 At a Glance: Formal Engagement of the Czech Republic with the UN Human Rights Treaty System
Refer to the chart on the next page.
4 Role and Overall Impact of Human Rights Treaties in the Czech Republic
4.1 Role of UN Treaties
4.1.1 Formal Acceptance
The Czech Republic has ratified eight of the nine core UN human rights treaties.20 Six of these – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ccpr); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (cescr); the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (cerd); the Convention on the Elimination of All
cerd entered into force in respect of the then Czechoslovak Socialist Republic on 4 January 1969. The ratification had been subject to a reservation in respect of article 22 cerd. The Federal Assembly of the csfr on 16 November 1990 approved the withdrawal of this reservation.
cescr was signed in the name of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic on 7 October 1968. After Federal Assembly approval, the President ratified the Covenant with a comment on article 26(1). The Czech Republic has not accepted the individual complaints procedure (op-cescr), nor the inquiry procedure under the Optional Protocol (op-cescr article 11). There is an ongoing discussion on the possibility of ratification of op-cescr, and government officials are working on an analysis which should provide the government with various options for further steps towards ratification.
ccpr took effect in the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in 1976; the Czech Republic succeeded, as of 1 January 1993, into the obligations arising from the Covenant including the declaration pertaining to article 48(1) of the Covenant. The declaration pertaining to article 41 was repealed in 1991. At the same time, the Czech Republic accepted the individual complaints procedure. The First Optional Protocol (op1-ccpr) took effect in 1991. The Czech Republic also succeeded, as of 1 January 1993, into the obligations arising for the former Czech and Slovak Federative Republic from op1-ccpr. The Czech Republic ratified op2-ccpr in 2004.
cedaw was ratified in 1980 and came into force in 1982. The Czech Republic succeeded to the obligations arising from the Covenant for the former csfr as of 1 January 1993. The Czech Republic ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (op-cedaw) in 2001 and accepted the inquiry procedure (articles 8–9 op-cedaw).
crc came into effect for the csfr in 1991. With regard to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (op-crc-ac), the instrument of ratification was deposited in 2001. In 2013 the Czech Republic ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (op-crc-sc) and in 2015 the Optional Protocol to the Convention on a communications procedure.
The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ced) was ratified by the Czech Republic in 2017. The individual complaints procedure (article 31) and the inquiry procedure (article 33) under the Convention have been accepted.
The instrument of ratification of the Czech Republic for crpd was deposited in 2009. The Czech Republic has not yet ratified op-crpd; there is an ongoing process towards ratification.
The Czech government is not planning to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (cmw) as it believes that these rights are ensured by existing legislation and measures.21
4.1.2 General Attitude of State towards UN Treaty System
The obligations which the Czech Republic accepted under the UN treaty system are reflected at different levels. As for the level of government, advisory bodies regularly review compliance of Czech legislation and legal practice with the recommendations of the UN treaty bodies. Based on suggestions made by UN human rights bodies, the Council for Human Rights of the Czech government quite frequently proposes changes in law and concrete measures to be implemented by various bodies of the executive branch. At present, Czech authorities are preparing for an upgrade of the Office of the Defender of Rights to a national human rights institution (nhri) as requested by various UN human rights bodies.22
As the UN human rights treaties that have been ratified by the Czech Republic are part of the internal legal order, Czech courts are obliged to use these as a source of law which, in cases of conflicts of law, takes precedence over national law (except the Constitution).
4.1.3 Level of Awareness
In the current system of legal education at the university level, human rights education plays an important role, a part of mandatory courses focusing on both constitutional and international legal aspects. Besides this, courses on international and European human rights protection are also taught as optional courses. This means that state officials who have graduated from law schools, in general, have quite a good understanding of the UN treaty system.
In the Czech Republic, the Judicial Academy as a central state institution is offering training for judges and prosecutors in different fields of law, including international human rights law. The major focus of the training programmes is on the echr and the case law of the ECtHR. The training carried out by the Justice Academy guarantees a high level of awareness among judges and state prosecutors. As for practising lawyers, the Czech Bar Association offers training and publications dealing especially with the implementation of the echr in the Czech Republic.
Awareness about international human rights law is quite high among non-governmental organisations (ngos) in the Czech Republic as representatives of those organisations are involved into the national monitoring process at the level of advisory bodies of the government as half of the government’s Human Rights Council is composed of representatives of civil society. Moreover, the role of the Ombudsperson in the field of promoting human rights must not be underestimated. The publications and reports of the Ombudsperson contribute to the high level of awareness as they regularly take into account the implementation of international human rights obligations.
4.1.4 State Reporting
The Czech Republic generally meets its reporting obligations. In total, 31 reports were submitted (cerd – seven reports were submitted; ccpr – four reports; cescr – three reports; cedaw – six reports; cat – five reports; crc – four reports; crpd – one report; and ced – one report). Some of the reports were delayed; the delays are being shortened.24
Given general shortcomings and deficiencies in the preparation of reports on the fulfilment of commitments and obligations arising from international treaties on human rights, the government has established the Council for Human Rights25 to act as an advisory and coordinating body responsible for monitoring domestic compliance with international commitments in the field of human rights.26
The Council is currently chaired by the Prime Minister. In the past it was the Government Commissioner for Human Rights who chaired the meetings; the Government Commissioner acts as the vice-president of the Council. The post of the Commissioner for Human Rights27 was established in 1998. The
The reports to various committees are usually descriptive and detailed, follow the structure of the Conventions and are compiled by the Section for Human Rights of the Office of the Government based on documentation from central state administration bodies (such as the Ministries of Culture, Defence, Local Development, Labour and Social Affairs, Justice, Education, Youth and Sports, Interior, Foreign Affairs, Health, Agriculture, Environment, the Czech Statistical Office, the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting). Additional documentation is usually provided by the Ombudsperson, Supreme Courts, members of the government advisory bodies (such as the Government Board for People with Disabilities, the Council for National Minorities), academic institutions and other ngos cooperating with the Government Commissioner for Human Rights.
The delegation of the Czech Republic presenting the reports in Geneva is mostly headed by a representative at the level of Director and includes representatives of government Ministries (Education; Interior; Labour and Social Affairs, Health, Justice, and so forth). All periodic reports, follow-up and other information for the Committees, their cos and related information are published on the web page of the government in the section of the Government Council for Human Rights (
4.1.5 Domestic Implementation Mechanism
As stated above, the government has empowered the Council for Human Rights to ensure the fulfilment of its commitments arising from international instruments, unless such tasks have been entrusted to other state administration authorities. The domestic mechanism for implementation of cos is the same as for the preparation of reports. The Secretariat of the Council for Human Rights coordinates the process. The respective ministries (such as the Ministry of Education; Interior; Labour and Social Affairs) are involved, depending on the subject matter of the cos.
4.1.6 Treaty Body Membership
So far, the Czech Republic has had only one member on a treaty body. This was Ms Margerita Vysokajová (from the Charles University in Prague; an expert in labour and social security law) who was a member of the cescr Cttee and whose term expired in 1996. There is no open national process for nomination of members to the treaty bodies. The impact on the role of the treaty on the domestic level in connection with the treaty body membership has not been registered. The transfer of knowledge and experience was ensured.
4.2 Overview of Impact
4.2.1 Involuntary Sterilisations
Several Committees29 made the recommendation to consider extending or abolishing the statute of limitation with regard to past cases of involuntary (or ‘forced’) sterilisations and to establish an effective out-of-court compensation mechanism for victims of involuntary sterilisation. In 2016 the Czech Republic also received a communication30 in the case of Dzurková & Others v the Czech Republic (No 102/2016) which related to the issue of involuntary sterilisation.
The main measure taken to prevent involuntary sterilisations for the future was the adoption of an Act on specific healthcare services, which came into
4.2.2 Restitutions
Case law regarding the problem of restitution in the Czech Republic has shown that in cases of conflicts between UN treaty bodies and national authorities the interpretation provided by the Czech Constitutional Court will prevail.32 The restitution of property to its original owners was conceived as a project of compensating property confiscations and nationalisation programmes carried out by the Communist Czechoslovak government. Therefore, in principle restitution may be understood as compensation for former human rights violations. The major Restitution Law, namely, the Law on Extrajudicial Rehabilitation, which became effective in April 1991, provided that compensable acts of injustice occurred between February 1948 and January 1990. Thus, the Law does not apply, for instance, to property of Sudeten Germans and ethnic Hungarians that was nationalised between 1945 and 1948 due to their former collaboration with the Nazis. The Restitution Law further stipulated that the claimant needed to be a physical person having his citizenship and place of permanent residence in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. Thus, the Law precluded foreign nationals or citizens permanently residing abroad from submitting restitution claims. A number of those whose restitution claims had been rejected by the Czech authorities alleged that they had been discriminated against in violation of article 26 ccpr. The Human Rights Committee (HRCttee) found that whereas communications questioning the temporal scope of restitution (post-February 1948) were manifestly ill-founded, that the citizenship requirement was discriminatory and the Committee called upon the Czech Republic to change the Restitution Law.33
4.2.3 Impact on and through Independent State Institutions
The main independent institution for the protection and promotion of human rights is the Ombudsperson/Public Defender of Rights, who fulfils the majority of the Paris Principles within his or her work. The authority of the Ombudsperson is regulated by a special law.35 His or her main goal is to check that the public administration works in accordance with the principles of good governance. The Ombudsperson cannot directly interfere with the actions of the administrative bodies or annul or change their decisions and does not have a quasi-judicial authority. However, he or she can perform independent investigations and give recommendations to rectify the mistakes and shortcomings. The authorities have an obligation to cooperate with the Ombudsperson, to fulfil his or her recommendations and to inform them about their correcting measures.
In the activities within his or her legal authority the Ombudsperson also focuses on economic, social and cultural rights. Within the supervision of the state administration he or she primarily focuses on administrative proceedings related to access to economic, social and cultural rights, namely, policies of employment; inspection of working conditions; social security and welfare; social and legal protection of children; investigation of complaints within health care; provision of education; and so forth, where he or she oversees that these proceedings are carried out in compliance with the law and the principles of good governance and that they contribute as much as possible to the fulfilment of the rights of the affected persons.36 Since 1 December 2009 the Ombudsperson performs the role of the so-called equality body as defined by the Anti-Discrimination Act. In January 2018 the Ombudsperson became the independent monitoring body under crpd that systematically monitors the rights of persons with disabilities.
5
5.1 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
5.1.1 Incorporation and Reliance by Legislature and Executive
In line with Constitutional Law No 4/1993 Coll on measures associated with the dissolution of the csfr, the Czech Republic, as of 1 January 1993, assumed all the obligations arising from international law in respect to the former csfr, except for obligations in respect of the territory of the Slovak Republic. Since ratification had been subjected to a reservation in respect of article 22 cerd, the Federal Assembly of the csfr on 16 November 1990 approved the withdrawal of this reservation. After the Czech Republic had informed the UN Secretary-General that, as a successor state to csfr, it intended to remain bound among others by cerd, the Secretary-General notified the succession of the Czech Republic to cerd with effect from 1 January 1993.
The treaty was incorporated into domestic law by virtue of article 10 of the Czech Constitution which stipulated that ‘ratified and promulgated conventions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms which are binding on the Czech Republic are directly applicable and superior to law’. Thus, if a provision of Czech legislation was in conflict with the Convention, the latter took precedence.
The situation of the Czech Republic is specific insofar as the country was ethnically and culturally more homogenous than its neighbours in the eastern European region. State policy towards ethnic minorities is based upon a basic distinction between two groups of minorities. Whereas the situation of traditional national minorities, such as the Polish, Slovak and German minorities, from the beginning was considered rather satisfactory, the situation of the Roma minority was viewed as problematic from the perspective of social integration as most members of the Roma minority lacked education and vocational skills. Basically, the Czech Republic intended to avoid the paternalistic approach towards the Roma minority which had been typical for the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia.37
A number of political programmes and an institutional framework for the integration of Roma were created in the 1990s. For example, the Ministry of the Interior in 1997 instructed every town and district authority to create a post of
In the 1990s the Czech Criminal Code was amended in order to introduce subsections into a number of provisions on homicide, bodily harm and extortion that make racial motivation for such acts an aggravating circumstance.40 Moreover, the penalties for racially-motivated crimes were increased. Public prosecutors and investigators were instructed to ensure prompt judicial action in cases of racially-motivated offences.
With regard to political documents that deal with the issue of Roma integration, it has to be noted that there is little reference to international treaties in general and the specifically cerd. The current governmental strategy for Roma integration until 2020, which was adopted in 2015, contains only two short footnotes pointing at cerd: first in the context of equal access to employment and, second, with regard to the prohibition of racial discrimination.
Roma inclusion is being supported by both national and EU funds. Therefore, the European Commission regularly monitors progress in Roma inclusion. According to the European Commission, the Czech Republic should allocate at least 20 per cent of its total European social fund to fighting social exclusion and poverty.41 Following the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of dh & Others
5.1.2 Reliance by Judiciary
Czech courts very rarely rely on cerd. In a constitutional complaint of 2013, the complainant argued that his placement in a so-called special school, which at the time was established for children with intellectual disabilities under the legislation, was unconstitutional. The placement took place in 1985. The complainant claimed that he had been placed in a special school because of his Roma origin and that the authorities had discriminated against him on grounds of ethnic origin. According to the complainant, the education deficit was limiting him in the labour market. He therefore demanded apologies by the Czech state and compensation for non-material damage of czk 500 000. In this case, the Constitutional Court admitted that, for the period since 1985, the applicant in principle could base his claim on cerd. However, the Constitutional Court concluded that as the provisions relating to the right to education were not self-executing, their direct application was precluded.43
In 2012 the same case was dealt with by the Highest Court which also addressed the issue of the self-executing nature of cerd provisions.44 The Highest Court found that articles 5 and 7 cerd cannot be understood as self-executing, since the Convention itself does not qualify as self-executing, and it could be inferred from the circumstances that the csfr intended to establish such national applicability at the time of accession to this Convention. According to the Highest Court, these standards were not sufficiently specific and unambiguous to directly create rights and obligations for individuals, since they did not impose obligations on the judiciary but only legislative powers to translate the individual articles into national law. The Highest Court concluded that although cerd was binding on the Czech Republic, due to the non-self-executing nature of its provisions on the right to education, individuals cannot claim their rights by simply referring to this Convention.
5.1.3
In the period from 2015 to 2019 we do not find references to cerd in the professional journals of the Czech Notarial Chamber, the Czech Executive Chamber and the Czech Bar Association. More often cerd is referred to in the statements and publications of ngos which focus on issues of non-discrimination.45 Special focus is put, for instance, on the education of Roma children, the collection of ethnic data and hate crimes. In those publications the issue of racial discrimination is quite often linked to the problem of gender discrimination.46 As an academic teacher, I may confirm that racial discrimination is a relatively popular subject among students preparing a diploma thesis or doctoral thesis at Czech universities.
5.1.4 Impact of State Reporting
Since the 1990s the Committee in its cos has focused on issues related to the situation of the Roma minority in the Czech Republic. Already in its cos of 1998 the Committee found that there was discrimination against Roma in areas such as housing, transport and employment.47 The 1998 cos also mentioned ‘the marginalization of the Roma community in the field of education’. A disproportionately large number of Roma children were placed in special schools, leading to ‘de facto racial segregation’.48 So, quite logically, the Committee in 1998 recommended the adoption of legal provisions aimed at safeguarding the enjoyment on a non-discriminatory basis of the economic, of social and cultural rights listed in cerd, notably, the rights to work, housing, education, and access to services and places open to the general public. Among other issues, the Committee noted that the Czech Republic should consider the possibility of a declaration under article 14 cerd.
In its cos of 2001 the Committee pointed at progress concerning the establishment of new advisory bodies on matters relevant to combating racism and intolerance, in particular the government’s Commissioner for Human Rights and the Council for Human Rights.49 However, the Committee also expressed its concern about situations of de facto segregation in the areas of housing and education of the Roma population and about the continuing lack of effective
In 2000 the Czech Republic submitted a declaration under article 14 cerd recognising the competence of the Committee to receive and consider individual communications under cerd. The Czech Republic also accepted the amendment of article 8(6) of cerd concerning the responsibility for expenses of members of the Committee during the performance of their duties. Despite certain positive steps adopted with a view to improving the situation of the Roma and other marginalised groups, including refugees, the Committee, in its cos of 2004, still noted many shortcomings in the fields of racially-motivated violence and discrimination.50 The Committee found that negative attitudes towards minorities and refugees persisted among public officials, in the media and among the general public and that the judiciary, unlike the police, was not the object of sensitisation and educational activities.
In its cos of 2007, the Committee noted some positive legislative changes related to the new Employment Act of 2004, which prohibits direct and indirect discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to work, in particular on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, nationality, citizenship, descent, language and religion or belief, and to the new Education Act of 2004, which stipulates that basic education will be provided to all regardless of citizenship and legality of residence.51 However, the problem of Roma discrimination remained urgent. In this respect the Committee for the first time pointed to the issue of coerced sterilisation to which a large proportion of Roma women were subjected before and after 1991. The inquiries undertaken by the Public Defender of Rights on this matter were found insufficient and not sufficiently prompt.52
A number of legislative measures were adopted by the Czech Republic in 2008 and 2009, in particular Act 198/2009 on equal treatment and on legal means of protection against discrimination (Anti-Discrimination Act), the 2009 amendment of section 133a of the Rules of Civil Procedure reversing the burden of proof in cases of racial discrimination and the 2008 amendment of the Penal Code, establishing racial motive as an aggravating circumstance in a number of crimes. The enactment of these legislative measures was in line with former recommendations of the Committee. However, it seems that the major reason for the adoption of the new Anti-Discrimination Act, which was
With regard to the follow-up to the cos of 2011 two major issues have been identified. First, the issue of Roma discrimination in the field of education was again raised, with a special view to a judgment of the ECtHR of 2007, which found a violation of European non-discrimination standards within the Czech system of primary education. The Committee recommended that the state party take concrete steps to ensure effective desegregation of Romani children. In this respect, the Czech Republic stated that by means of a new national action plan and legislative changes this problem would be tackled.54 Second, the Committee remained concerned about the issue of sterilisation of Romani women without their free and informed consent. Although Czech authorities in 2009 had expressed their regret and a decision of the Supreme Court of June 2011 had waived the statute of limitations, many obstacles remained in place obstructing full reparation and compensation of victims. In this respect, the Czech Republic promised to reconsider the issue of the three-year statutory limitation period and ex gratia compensation which would apply to women whose sterilisation prior to 1991 had been motivated by the social care, and also to women for whom the sterilisation was the responsibility of the medical facility where the procedure was performed, and who had no possibility of demanding compensation via legal proceedings, due to the lapse of the statutory limitation period.55
Both issues remained on the list for the 2017 follow-up. Following up on the Committee’s recommendation concerning the introduction of inclusive education, the Czech Republic provided extensive information about a new system of educating pupils with special educational needs which took effect in 2016.56 The new system is based on the principle of including these pupils in the mainstream education system. The Act removed the categorisation of children, pupils and students according to their health or social status. As for the issue of compensation damages to illegally-sterilised persons, the Czech government had discussed possible legislative measures. However, the government in 2015 decided not to adopt any such measures after having carefully considered the arguments ensuing from the Czech legal order, the jurisprudence of the Czech courts, including the Constitutional Court, the viewpoints
5.1.5 Impact of Individual Communications
Although the Czech Republic already in 2000 recognised the competence of the Committee to receive and consider individual communications, so far no individual complaints have been submitted.
5.1.6 Impact of Other Measures
In 1998 the Committee issued Decision 2(52)58 in which, in line with article 9(1) of cerd, it requested the government of the Czech Republic to provide it with information on the situation in certain municipalities in which measures were allegedly contemplated for the physical segregation of some residential units housing Roma families. The Czech Republic in 1999 provided information on the situation in Maticni Street, Nestemice, where the local authorities intended to prevent the tenants of two residential blocks from direct access to Maticni Street. As the government viewed this intention as a possible interference in human rights, namely, human dignity, equality before the law without distinction as to social and ethnic origin or property, it promised to prevent the erection of a wall separating the tenants of the residential units (90 per cent of whom were Roma).
The President of the Republic and the Government Representative for Human Rights visited the municipality in order to hold talks with members of the local self-government and the Romas. Civic associations established a dialogue with the city hall and removed the garbage which was one of the causes that made the non-Roma residents in Maticni Street call for the erection of a wall. In October 1999 the government expressed its concern over the construction of the fence and also the Chamber of Deputies discussed the case at its proximate session following the parliamentary holiday.
Nevertheless, the Neštěmice municipality, based on a decision of September 1999, had the fence erected in October 1999. On the same day the Chamber of Deputies decided, by 100 votes to 58 (with 28 absentees and 14 abstentions)
Although gaps persisted also after the removal of the fence, the action taken by the Committee, supported by other international human rights actors, has had a clear impact on the solution of the case.
5.1.7 Brief Conclusion
The issue of racial discrimination is very topical in the Czech Republic with regard to the unsatisfactory situation of the Roma minority. Thus far the Committee has been focusing almost exclusively on this minority. The status of other national and social minorities seems to be less problematic in light of cerd. Although in its regular reports the Czech Republic has shown a significant degree of self-criticism and openness to dialogue with the Committee and international organisations, the protracted problem of racial discrimination has many complex causes.
A number of concrete legislative and institutional measures that have been adopted by the Czech Republic as a consequence of its obligations under cerd and EU anti-discrimination law. Concrete legal acts concern a new body of anti-discrimination law and amendments concerning the laws on education and employment and the Criminal Code. The government has installed a set of
From a pragmatic perspective it seems that the obligations under cerd and the recommendations issued by the Committee are more effectively implemented when they are supported by political pressure from EU institutions, especially the European Commission. Although the Czech Anti-Discrimination Act indeed is reflecting crucial provisions of cerd, its adoption, in the first place, was motivated by the Czech Republic’s obligation to implement EU directives into national law. As far as racial discrimination in the field of education is concerned, a prominent judgment of the ECtHR, which is legally binding on the Czech Republic, has more concretely influenced both political debate and the procedure of legislation.
5.2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ccpr took effect in the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic on 23 March 1976. As of 1 January 1993, the Czech Republic succeeded to the obligations arising from the Covenant for the former Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, including the declaration pertaining to article 48(1) of the Covenant. The declaration pertaining to article 41 was repealed as of 12 March 1991. Also in 1993, the Czech Republic accepted the individual complaints procedure. A Czech translation of the Covenant exists.60
5.2.1 Incorporation and Reliance by Legislature and Executive
Like any other international treaty, the Covenant forms part of the Czech legal order, while also taking precedence over legislative acts.61 Most of the civil and political freedoms listed in the Covenant are also reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms of 1991 which forms an integral part of the Czech constitutional order (there is no direct citation of the Covenant). The Charter also introduces into the law the rights laid down in the cescr. Commitments and obligations arising from the Covenant are binding upon the Czech Republic even above the framework of what the Charter contains. The fundamental rights and liberties laid down in the Charter require a multitude of legal provisions to be implemented.
Some rights protected in the Covenant were affected by the Czech Republic’s accession to the EU on 1 May 2004. This concerns mainly rights of which the holders under the Covenant can only be nationals of the treaty state. Member
More than two decades after the 1989 revolution, the complex transformation in the fields of criminal and private law was completed by the adoption of new criminal and civil codes. In 2010 the new Criminal Code63 entered into force, which focuses primarily on the protection of individual human rights such as the right to life, health, liberty and dignity. Criminal prosecution is regarded as the ultima ratio. Another fundamental change was the recodification of the rules of private law in the new Civil Code,64 as well as the Act on Business Corporations65 and the Act on Private International Law.66 The main objectives of the recodification were to develop codices based on respect for European legal thought and to break with the ideology embodied in pre-1989 Communist law.67 An issue of great importance for the protection of human rights was the adoption of the Anti-Discrimination Act in 2009,68 designed to strengthen the protection against discrimination in all major areas of social life.
The responsibility for the implementation of the views of the Human Rights Committee in 2003 was assumed by the Ministry of Justice. The procedure was set by a resolution of the government.69 The Ministry requests the relevant authorities to submit information about measures they had taken (or intend to take) or had suggested (or intend to suggest) in order to implement the views of the Committee with regard to non-compliance with the Covenant by the Czech Republic. The Minister of Justice, in cooperation with relevant authorities, recommends measures to be adopted by the government in order to implement the conclusions contained in the views of the Committee. The government may submit a draft law to the Chamber of Deputies in order to remedy the incompatibility of the legislation with the Covenant.70 Government
The government has adopted comprehensive strategies on the promotion of human rights of various vulnerable groups, such as on the Right to Childhood; the National Action Plan Promoting Positive Ageing; the National Action Plan for the Prevention of Domestic Violence; the National Action Plan for Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities; the Strategy of Roma Integration; and the Strategy for Combating Social Exclusion.72 These strategies relate directly to the rights contained in the Covenant. However, explicit references to concrete provisions of the Covenant are very rarely found (for instance, in the Strategy of Roma Integration until 2020). The comprehensive strategies contain provisions on resource allocation, both from national resources as well as EU funds.
The protection of human rights and the fulfilment of commitments and obligations arising from the Covenant also fall into the purview of committees of both chambers of Parliament of the Czech Republic, namely, the Petition Committee of the House of Deputies of Parliament, which comprises two sub-committees, one for the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Liberties, the other dealing with nationalities; and the Human Rights, Science, Education and Culture Committee of the Senate of Parliament. Members of Parliament may present interpellations73 to the government ministers to obtain information about issues relating to human rights treaties.
5.2.2
According to article 4 of the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms are protected by the judicial power. A particularly important role in the protection of human rights belongs to the Constitutional Court. Courts are responsible for offering protection in the manner stipulated by law. In decision making, judges are bound both by legislative acts and by international treaties.74 References to the provisions of the Covenant can be found in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic (no reference to treaty body interpretations was found) and administrative courts. The Constitutional Court often refers75 to the provisions of the Covenant and also uses references to the General Comments to the Covenant (for instance, in the findings Pl.ÚS 8/16 from 19 December 2017 and iv.ÚS 3526/16 from 21 March 2017 where the General Comment was followed) and to the jurisprudence of the Committee (for instance Pl. ÚS 83/06 from 12 March 2008 and finding pl.ÚS 17/10 from 28 June 2011 where the argumentation was followed; in its resolution iii.ÚS 93/11 from 11 September 2012 in the case on discrimination on the
5.2.3 Impact on and through Non-state Actors
The Covenant forms part of legal education at a general level at law faculties, as well as at the level of specialised training for judges, public prosecutors and other civil servants. The rights guaranteed by the Covenant are taught along with the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and public international law courses at all law faculties in the Czech Republic. Additional information on this topic is also provided in the Czech Judicial Academy’s training programme for judicial trainees awaiting appointment as judges, as well as for public prosecutors.76 All civil servants are required to abide by the constitutional order, which includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, as well as legislative acts and international treaties that form part of the legislation including the Covenant.77
Legal professionals use references to the provisions of the Covenant especially in their complaints presented to the Constitutional Court.
ngos use references to the Covenant in their advocacy campaigns. For example, In Iustitia refers to the Covenant in its campaign on hate crime which refers also to the osce documents and the European Convention;78 the Organisation for Aid to Refugees in its campaign against the V4 (Visegrad Group countries – Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary) policy on migration;79 Sdružení pro integraci a migraci (in English, Association for Integration and Migration) in its advocacy work to support migrant women;80 and Slovo 21 in its campaign on Roma identity/education,81 all relied on the Covenant.
5.2.4
The reporting of the Czech Republic is thorough and descriptive.82 It follows the structure of the Covenant article by article. Reports contain factual information and make reference to previous cos. In 2001 the Committee stated that it missed the information on the implementation of the Covenant rights in practice. When preparing the reports not only government bodies, but also the Ombudsperson, Supreme Courts, members of government advisory bodies and other ngos cooperating with the Government Commissioner for Human Rights are consulted and are invited to submit their views and opinions, which have been used for the composition of the report. There were no reports of reprisals against human rights defenders engaging in the reporting process. Civil society submits thematic reports.83
The Committee had a dialogue with the delegation in July 2001, July 2007, July 2013 and October 2019. The most pertinent issues covered by the cos were the following: in 2001 – restitution of property; the lack of independent mechanisms for monitoring the practical implementation of rights; discrimination against minorities, particularly Roma; discrimination in employment; racial discrimination; representation of women in political life; trafficking of women; domestic violence; and police harassment; in 2007 – restitution of property; police misconduct particularly against Roma; involuntary/forced sterilisation; participation of women in political life; the use of enclosed restraint beds; and discrimination; in 2013 – the mandate of the Ombudsperson/Public Defender of Rights; representation of women in decision-making positions; intolerance against Roma; involuntary/forced sterilisations; and discrimination against persons with mental disabilities.
One of the key issues repeatedly mentioned in the cos are involuntary sterilisations. The main measure taken to prevent it in the future was the adoption of the new rules on sterilisation in the Act on specific healthcare services, which came into effect in 2012 and which reinforced the rights of the patient. Sterilisation for health reasons may only be performed on patients over the age of 18, provided they give their written consent. Sterilisation for other reasons may only be performed on patients over the age of 21 on the basis of their written request, provided there are no serious health counter-indications. At the beginning of 2012 the Government Council for Human Rights adopted a proposal which recommended to the government to compensate women who had been sterilised in violation of the law.84 The Minister for Human Rights prepared a draft compensation mechanism which was later rejected by the government. The government is further engaged in other methods than pecuniary compensation to redress the harm caused by unlawful sterilisation. In March 2016 the Government Council for Roma Minority Affairs set up the Working Party on Unlawful Sterilisations to identify other ways of public support for unlawfully-sterilised persons than financial compensation. For example, in cooperation with the Czech Psychotherapy Society, experts have provided free psychological assistance to unlawfully-sterilised women.85 In five cases of unlawful sterilisation the Czech courts have had to deal with pleas of statutory limitation.86 In two cases, the Supreme Court found the plea contra bonos mores and in at least one case the victim received compensation.87 In the other three cases the Czech courts upheld the statutory limitation. In two cases submitted to the ECtHR, an amicable settlement was reached, with the
5.2.5 Impact of Individual Communications
The Czech Republic succeeded, as of 1 January 1993, into the obligations arising for the former Czech and Slovak Federative Republic from op1-ccpr. Fifty-six individual complaints have been lodged with the Human Rights Committee. The HRCtee found the Czech Republic in violation in 29 communications. The predominant topic of individual complaints lodged with the Committee is discrimination on the basis of citizenship with respect to restitution of property. In most of the cases of non-restitution to non-citizens of the Czech Republic the Committee declared violations of article 26 of the Covenant and that the state party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, including compensation, if the properties cannot be returned.92
The Czech Republic does not share the legal opinion of the Committee regarding the discriminatory nature of the restitution condition of citizenship and therefore it relies on the case law of the Constitutional Court, in which the Court has also referred to the relevant provisions of the Covenant. The opinions of the Committee have been, and will continue to be, implemented through hearings of individual cases by the courts as bodies empowered to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the Constitutional Court as a body established to protect constitutionality.93
In the case Rudolf Czernin v Czech Republic,94 which covered the substantive issue of retention of citizenship, the Committee declared a violation of article 14 of the Covenant (views adopted on 29 March 2005). In the case of Mr lp v Czech Republic,95 covering the issue of contact with minor children, the Committee declared a violation of article 17 of the Covenant (views adopted on 25 July 2002).
The implementation of the Committee’s observations is governed by the 2011 Act on the Cooperation in the Proceedings before International Courts and Other International Supervisory Bodies requiring the competent bodies to immediately take all necessary individual and general measures intended to halt and prevent any violation of the Covenant or any other international convention. The Ministry of Justice (namely, the government agent) has been
The government agent charged with representation of the Czech Republic in the proceedings on communications under the Optional Protocol publishes regular reports on the state of complaints against the Czech Republic before the international bodies for the protection of human rights. These are available in Czech on the webpage
5.2.6 Brief Conclusion
The Covenant forms part of the Czech legal order. In general, the Czech Republic makes efforts to cooperate with the Committee, submits its reports and provides timely responses within the follow-up procedure. The Czech courts (the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and administrative courts) refer to the Covenant in their decisions and ngos in their advocacy campaigns. Almost half of the individual complaints lodged with the treaty body focus on one topic: non-restitution to non-citizens. The view of the government reflects difficult circumstances occasioned by the transition from a Communist to a democratic state. Property restitution in the Czech Republic was a complex and sensitive issue. It was undeniable that property-restitution had been very generous, the sole restriction being legal residence or citizenship. The Constitutional Court had found the citizenship requirement to be lawful. There was no legal obligation on the state to restore property. Although some might consider the restrictions discriminatory, in terms of legal residence and citizenship, they had not been introduced by the government, but by Parliament, and thus represented the popular will.97
5.3 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
By notice of 22 February 1993 the Czech Republic succeeded to the obligations arising from the Covenant for the former csfr as of 1 January 1993. The Czech Republic has accepted neither the individual complaints procedure
5.3.1 Incorporation and Reliance by Legislature and Executive
The Covenant forms part of the Czech legal order, while also taking precedence over legislative acts. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms of 1991 implements into the legal order the major part of rights set forth in cescr (there is no direct citation of the Covenant). Steps taken by the Czech Republic to achieve full implementation in the economy of the rights recognised by the Covenant were directly connected to the transformation of the economy which started in 1990 and its transition to a market economy. An issue of great importance was the adoption of the Anti-Discrimination Act in 2009, designed to strengthen the protection against discrimination in all major areas of social life, such as employment, social protection, health care, housing and education.
In the field of economic and social rights, the government’s main goal is the social inclusion of every person. The Social Inclusion Strategy for 2014–2020 is the general policy document for the fight against poverty and social exclusion with specific goals to reduce poverty with the help of EU structural funds. The Czech Republic supports equal opportunities for women and men by annually adopting the government’s priorities and actions. The Government Council for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which includes representatives from the general public and academia, is closely involved in designing and monitoring these measures. The focus mainly is on the reconciliation of the working, private and family life of women and men as well as an increase in the proportion of women in decision-making positions and the elimination of the gender pay gap and domestic violence.
The basic document for the development of the education system in the Czech Republic has become, after 2001, the National Programme of Education Development in the Czech Republic, the so-called White Paper.99 It formulates the basis and prerequisites of the development of the education system, principles of the education policy, and management and funding principles, and has also set the main strategic lines of the development of education.100 The
In 2003 the government founded the Government Council for Sustainable Development as a permanent advisory, initiating and coordinating body in the area of sustainable development and strategic management.101 The Government Council for Seniors and Population Ageing was founded in 2006.102 The Council strives to create conditions for healthy, active and decent ageing and for equal treatment of seniors in all fields of life, for the protection of their human rights and for the development of intergenerational relations in families and in society.
5.3.2 Reliance by Judiciary
Independent courts are protecting the human rights and freedoms of individuals, including economic, social and cultural rights. The judicial body for the protection of constitutionality and domestic law is the Constitutional Court. In a conflict between international and domestic law, the Constitutional Court applies international and regional (European) treaties on human rights, including cescr.
References to the Covenant were found in 61 decisions of the Constitutional Court. Most often, the Constitutional Court referred to article 11 of the Covenant (the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their family, including adequate food, clothing and housing); article 7 (the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work); and article 12 (the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health).103
The Supreme Administrative Court also cited the right to an adequate standard of living and adequate housing (article 11(1)) when assessing the legality of tax concessions for some flat transfers or the general principles of solidarity and development and upholding of the right of a human to be free from fear and want pursuant to the Covenant’s Preamble.107 The Supreme Court also focused on the right to an adequate standard of living or adequate housing (article 11(1)) when assessing the regulation of rents of flats and the right to education as well as the issue of discrimination in access to education. The decisions of lesser courts are not centrally monitored; nevertheless, they are also bound by the Covenant and the Charter and other international treaties and must respect them in their decision making. The Covenant and the Charter are also often used for argumentation by parties in court proceedings.108
5.3.3 Impact on and through Independent State Institutions
The mandate of the Ombudsperson has been gradually extended to encompass new human rights portfolios as the national equality and anti-discrimination body and the protection of the rights of foreigners during detention and expulsion procedures. In this manner the Ombudsperson exercises many of the functions of a national human rights institution according to the Paris Principles, although not registered as such.
In the activities within their legal authority the Ombudsperson also focuses on economic, social and cultural rights. Within the supervision of the state
The Ombudsperson cooperates with the government and Parliament, and presents them with recommendations on how to deal with human rights problems. The Ombudsperson also makes comments on most of the government’s draft regulations and policies from the perspective of human rights protection. The Ombudsperson works intensively with expert practitioners and with civil society representatives and utilises their experience in their own work.110
5.3.4 Impact on and through Non-state Actors
Education in the area of human rights in general has been included in all current documents used in education towards citizenship.111 The process and results of activities of individual schools in regions are continuously monitored and assessed by the Czech School Inspection. The Covenant forms part of legal education at a general level at law faculties, as well as at the level of specialised training for judges, public prosecutors and other civil servants.
ngos use references to the Covenant in their advocacy campaigns. To give some examples: Liga lidských práv referred to the Covenant and its particular provisions and cited concrete obligations of the state in its advocacy work on the topic of employment of persons with disabilities;112 involuntary sterilisation and education of Roma children;113 Otevřená společnost in its work on social discrimination;114 Organisation for Aid to Refugees in its campaign on
5.3.5 Impact of State Reporting
The reports to the Committee were prepared by the Human Rights Department of the office of the government of the Czech Republic based on documentation from central state administration bodies.118 Additional documentation was provided by ngos and academic institutions.
The reporting of the Czech Republic is rather descriptive, contains detailed statistical data, respects articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant and is based on the Committee’s revised general guidelines on the form and content of reports on the fulfilment of obligations arising from the Covenant and relevant facts and new measures adopted by the Czech Republic to fulfil obligations arising from the Covenant in the report period. The Committee itself welcomed the initial report of the state party, which it found to be comprehensive and generally in conformity with its guidelines for the preparation of reports.
There were no reports of reprisals against human rights defenders engaging in the reporting process.
The Committee had a dialogue with the delegation in April/May 2002 and in May 2014.
In its cos of 2014 the Committee recommended to incorporate all economic, social and cultural rights into the Charter; to revise the mandate and powers of the Ombudsperson with a view to bring them in line with the Paris Principles; to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act; to adopt a human rights-based approach in addressing discrimination against the Roma; to address discrimination against migrants; the gender pay gap; social housing; and inclusive education.119 In 2002 the Committee recommended to give full effect to the Covenant in its legal system; to repeal the lustration law; to eliminate discrimination against groups of minorities, in particular Roma; to address domestic violence; housing; and to adopt effective measures to reduce tobacco smoking, drug abuse and alcohol consumption, especially among children.120 The two periodic reports and other information for the Committee and its cos are published on the web page of the government in the section of the Government Council for Human Rights. All the documents are available in Czech. There is no targeted media strategy.
From the periodic reports and replies to the list of issues, it can be derived that the Czech Republic makes efforts121 to implement the key recommendations, relating to discrimination (in major areas of social life such as employment, social protection, health care, housing and education), combating racism and extremism, and social inclusion. It does so often through soft tools such as strategies and action plans – Roma Integration Strategy; National Action Plan for the Prevention of Domestic Violence; Social Inclusion Strategy for 2014–2020; National Action Plan Promoting Positive Ageing for 2013–2017; Concept of Prevention and Solution of Homelessness until 2020. However, measures are mostly of a long-term character. Problems such as Roma discrimination122
5.3.6 Brief Conclusion
The Czech courts (the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Courts and administrative courts) refer to the Covenant in their decisions and ngos use it in their advocacy campaigns. Since most of the rights contained in the Covenant are equally protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, judges prefer to refer to the corresponding provisions of the Charter. This does not undermine the judicial protection of rights guaranteed by the Covenant, as the content of the rights in the Charter almost fully corresponds to the rights contained in the Covenant. Progress made in the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights is dependent on the economic situation and often also on the political will (which determined, for example, the approach of the government to the issue of compensation mechanism for non-consensual sterilisations124 of Romani women). The progress made was also influenced by the specific circumstances of the transition from a Communist to a democratic state which included privatisation and a subsequent change of ownership structures with an impact on certain areas of social life such as the provision of social housing. The Czech government continues to examine the possibility of ratifying the Optional Protocol and analyses its national implementation.
5.4 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
The Czech Republic succeeded to the obligations arising from the Covenant for the former csfr as of 1 January 1993. The Czech Republic ratified op-cedaw on 26 February 2001 and accepted the inquiry procedure (op-cedaw articles 8 and 9). A Czech translation of the Covenant exists.125
5.4.1 Incorporation and Reliance by Legislature and Executive
The Convention forms part of the Czech legal order, while also taking precedence over legislative acts. In addition to the key regulation of discrimination in the Penal and Civil Codes, specific legislation – the Anti-Discrimination
In 2001 the advisory body of the government– the Government Council for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men – was established.127 Its members are representatives of the individual ministries, social partners, the academic sector and civil society and expert public.
On the basis of the 4th World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995, the Czech Republic adopted in 1998 a national action plan named Priorities and Procedures of the Government in the Promotion of Equality between Men and Women, a fundamental strategic document in the field of gender equality at the government level.128 Since 1998 the national action plan for gender equality is adopted annually. Government Resolution 262 of 13 April 2011 approved the National Action Plan for the Prevention of Domestic Violence for the years 2011–2014. Later on, the Strategy of Gender Equality for the period 2014–2020 provided a broader framework and complemented other strategic and conceptual documents of the government associated with the gender agenda.
In terms of visibility of the Convention, the Gender Equality Unit in the Office of the Government discloses general recommendations of the Committee on the website of the Secretariat of the Government Council for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. Thanks to a project named Domestic Violence and Gender-Based Violence/Mainstreaming of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men and Promoting the Reconciliation of Work and Private Life’, the implementation of which started in March 2014, a publication informing about the Convention, the Committee’s activities and also
5.4.2 Reliance by Judiciary
In relation to the use of the Convention in the judicature of Czech courts it is possible to refer, for instance, to judgment of the Supreme Court No 30 Cdo 4277/2010 of 13 December 2012, which stated that at the international level, protection against discrimination is regulated by the conventions, by which the Czech Republic is bound, including cedaw. The judgment concerned racial discrimination. References to the Convention were found in three decisions of administrative courts (reference to article 16) and in three decisions of the Constitutional Court. In a finding of 2017 (pl.ÚS 2/15 #1) a reference to article 12 of the Convention and to the recommendation of cedaw relating to the health insurance and care to foreign women and children (cedaw/c/cze/co/5, paras 32–33) were found.
5.4.3 Impact on and through Independent State Institutions
The mandate of the Ombudsperson has been gradually extended to encompass new human rights portfolios as the national equality and anti-discrimination body.
5.4.4 Impact on and through Non-state Actors
The Covenant forms part of the Czech legal order. Therefore, the level of awareness among the legal practitioners should be rather high. However, the Committee, in its cos to the sixth periodic report, reiterated its concern that the provisions of the Convention continue to be rarely invoked in proceedings in the Constitutional Court and the ordinary courts, indicating that there is inadequate knowledge among the general public and women themselves, as well as within the judiciary, about the rights of women under the Convention and the procedures available to them under the Optional Protocol; the concept of substantive equality of women and men; and the Committee’s general recommendations. These observations correlate with the experience of the Ombudsperson which shows that the problematic aspect of adopting measures to eliminate discrimination against women is the prevailing low percentage
The rights guaranteed by the Convention are taught along with the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and public international law courses at all law faculties in the Czech Republic. Additional information is also provided through the Czech Judicial Academy’s training programme.133 However, in general, more attention is paid to the European regional system of protection of human rights (for instance, Training on EU Gender Equality Law for judges and public prosecutors is organised in cooperation with the Academy of European Law). In its cos to the sixth periodic report, the Committee reiterated its previous recommendation that the state party should ensure that the Convention and the Optional Protocol are made an integral part of the legal education and training of judges, lawyers and prosecutors, with a view to enabling them to directly apply the provisions of the Convention and interpret national legal provisions in the light of the Convention.
ngos use references to the Covenant in their advocacy campaigns. To give some examples of ngos that focus on discrimination of women: Česká ženská lobby; Forum 50% (focusing on the topics of equal opportunities for men and women in municipalities, Lobbying Kit, Women in Politics);134 Otevřená společnost;135 (topics: gender discrimination, gender audit, gender at school); In Iustitia (sexual violence); Český svaz žen (topics: equality at labour market, women in the countryside). Some of the ngos also submitted shadow reports to cedaw.
5.4.5
The reports submitted so far were elaborated by the Office of the Minister of Human Rights or the Government Commissioner for Human Rights on the basis of information provided by central state administration authorities, higher territorial self-government units, non-governmental non-profit organisations, the academic sector and social partners.
Civil society presented its shadow reports to the cedaw Cttee. The reports covered the following topics: coercive sterilisation of Romani women (two reports, in relation to articles 10, 12 and 16 of the Convention); trafficking in human beings and Romani women (both by the European Roma rights centre; article 6); obstacles to the free choice of place to give birth, domestic violence, rape and right to education (article 10); right to health (article 12); right to marriage and family life (article 16) (two reports by the League of Human Rights); women with disabilities (International Disability Alliance; Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Forum for Human Rights); violence against women, trafficking and exploitation of prostitution; participation in political and public life; education; employment; health (joint report of the Czech Women’s Lobby, La Strada and Persefona); migrant women (Organisation for Aid to Refugees and Forum for Human Rights). There were no reports of reprisals against human rights defenders engaging in the reporting process.
The delegations of the Czech Republic presenting the reports in Geneva were mostly headed by a representative at the level of director and included representatives of government ministries (Education; Interior; Labour and Social Affairs; Health; Justice; Foreign Affairs).
The Committee reviewed the reports of the Czech Republic in 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2016.
General recommendations of the Committee are made public on the website of the Secretariat of the Government Council for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (published in Czech and in English,
The key recommendations of the cos are taken into account by the government. So far, no significant progress has been registered, for instance, on the issue of ratification of the Istanbul Convention (the ratification process has not yet started) or the amendment to the electoral law to introduce the ‘zipper’ system (the draft amendment was not approved by the government). The Government Strategy for Equality of Women and Men covers horizontal areas such as gender stereotypes, legislation, data collection, men and gender equality. It includes specific indicators in order to monitor and evaluate progress achieved. The government claims that it has been paying increased attention to gender equality in the labour market. In order to help reconcile work and private life, the Act on Children Groups was adopted and came into force in November 2014. The Act provides the legal framework for providing childcare services on a non-commercial basis, which should be an alternative to educational care provided to children within the pre-school education system.
The Czech Republic provided information on the follow-up to the cos in 2012 (on domestic and sexual violence and on unlawful sterilisations)137 and in 2018 (on greater representation of women in politics and on coercive and non-consensual sterilisations).138
Coercive and non-consensual sterilisations represent a very specific issue for the Czech Republic. The government decided in 2015 not to establish an ex gratia compensation mechanism. The Constitutional Court in its ruling ordered courts not to disregard the statute of limitations where this would
5.4.6 Impact of Individual Communications
The Ministry of Justice (namely, the government agent) has been delegated to represent the Czech Republic in the proceedings on communications under op-cedaw.140 Based on the available reports of the government agent,141 the Czech Republic has received two communications. One was declared inadmissible.142
5.4.7 Brief Conclusion
The Committee, in its follow-up communications, considers the information provided by the Czech Republic to be thorough and extensive, and the quality of information qualifies as satisfactory. The main factors that influence the impact of the Convention are the inadequate knowledge of legal regulations among the general public and women themselves,143 the low percentage of reported144 and investigated cases145 and, in relation to certain specific issues such as non-consensual sterilisation, the lack of political will.146 The Ombudsperson,147 including with his or her role of equality
The Czech Republic has not yet ratified the Istanbul Convention. The ratification process should start in the near future. The Convention currently receives an unprecedented level of attention from the general public (comments by the Catholic Church,150 newspaper articles,151 seminars in Parliament).152
5.5 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
5.5.1 Incorporation and Reliance by Legislature and Executive
The Czech Republic, as of 1 January 1993, assumed all the obligations arising from international law in respect to the former csfr, except for obligations in respect of the territory of the Slovak Republic.
Under the Communist regime, before the Velvet Revolution of 1989, thousands of citizens had been arrested on political grounds and had suffered torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. After the fall of the regime a number of relevant legislative changes were introduced by the Czechoslovak Parliament, for instance, amendments concerning the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Code of Civil Procedure, Act 59/1965 on the
In line with a recommendation issued by the cat Cttee to the former Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, following the Czechoslovakian initial report on the implementation of cat, an amendment to the Criminal Code was adopted in 1993 (Act 290/1993) which introduced a new definition of the criminal act of ‘torture and other inhuman and cruel treatment’ as section 259a of the then Criminal Code.
Whosoever causes physical or mental suffering to another by means of torture or other inhuman and cruel treatment in connection with the exercise of the powers of central government authorities, local authorities, courts or other public authorities shall be punished by imprisonment of between six months and five years.
Two-year and eight-year prison sentences shall be imposed on an offender who commits this offence as an official against a witness, expert or interpreter in connection with the performance of their duties, against another person on the grounds of his actual or perceived race, ethnic group, nationality, political beliefs, religion, or in the actual or perceived absence of beliefs, if such an act is committed by at least two persons or repeatedly. Imprisonment of five to 12 years shall be imposed on an offender who commits the offence on a pregnant woman, on a child under the age of 15 years, in a particularly savage or harrowing manner, or if he causes severe injury as a result of such act. An offender who causes death as a result of committing the offence shall be imprisoned for between eight and 18 years.
It is acknowledged by Czech legal doctrine and legal practice that basic elements of the definition of torture are acts, intent, the effect of severe pain or physical or mental suffering, an objective and the existence of a state element. These factors are included in the constituent elements of the crime of torture and other inhuman and cruel treatment. Intention is a necessary element for
The Czech Republic has ratified op-cat. The Protocol came into force for the Czech Republic on 9 August 2006. The Ombudsman was appointed the national preventive mechanism in the Czech Republic under articles 17 to 23 of the Protocol.153 Under an amendment to Act 349/1999 on the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman’s competences were extended to include the new task of systematically visiting all places (facilities) where detained persons are or may be held (section 1 and 21(a)). It does not matter whether these persons are detained on the basis of a decision or order of a public authority or as a result of the factual situation in which they find themselves.
The Czech Republic is bound by ccpr, the European Convention Rights and the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In February 1997, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment made its first regular visit to the Czech Republic. Czech courts frequently make reference to the case law of the ECtHR concerning the interpretation and application of article 3 echr.
5.5.2 Reliance by Judiciary
As for cat, we find relatively many references in the jurisprudence of Czech courts. In the decisions of administrative courts we found 140 concrete references to cat. The vast majority of cases in which the administrative courts, including the Highest Administrative Court, used reference to cat concerns the issue of extradition, mostly to countries such as Georgia, Russia, Belarus and Moldova. The courts examined whether the decision to extradite a complainant infringed his right under article 3 cat.154 As a rule, a violation of article 3 cat was examined together with article 7 of the constitutional Charter, articles 3 and 6 echr and article 7 ccpr. Whereas court decisions in non-refoulement cases regularly point at article 3 cat on a general level, they do not contain a thorough analysis of the provision.155
There is only one judgment in which the Constitutional Court makes reference to articles other than article 3 cat, namely, articles 12–14 cat. In this judgment the Constitutional Court deals with the rights of victims in proceedings on a petition to authorise the reopening of proceedings to the detriment of the perpetrator, namely, in connection with the state’s obligation to protect the right to life through criminal law. In the same case the Constitutional Court also used article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 2 ccpr, articles 2, 3, 4 and 30 crc and article 6 cerd.158 However, in this case the Constitutional Court interpreted none of the above-mentioned international human rights provisions but without any deeper analysis assumed that those norms, including articles 12–14 cat, have the same meaning as the relevant constitutional provisions.
5.5.3 Impact on and through Non-state Actors
In the period from 2015 to 2019 we do not find references to cat in the professional journals of the Czech Notarial Chamber, the Czech Executive Chamber and the Czech Bar Association. In the statements and publications of ngos we very rarely find references to cat. Also in academe, cat and its application is not very popular among students preparing a diploma or doctoral thesis at Czech universities.
5.5.4 Impact of State Reporting
When considering the initial report of the Czech Republic, the Committee in its cos of 1995159 noted that there were no serious matters of concern regarding implementation by the Czech Republic of cat. Following up on the only recommendation formulated by the Committee the Czech Republic withdrew its reservation to article 20 of the Convention and made a declaration recognising the Committee’s competence to receive and consider communications under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention. The document on the withdrawal
In its cos of 2001 the Committee welcomed the adoption of the new Aliens Law and the new Asylum Law, both effective from 1 January 2000, the amendment to the Citizenship Law adopted in September 1999, which resolved most problems of statelessness that had disproportionately affected the Roma population, and the introduction of a special detention facility for foreigners, which resolved the problems arising from the detention of foreigners prior to expulsion.160
However, it has to be noted that there was no direct link between these legislative measures and obligations under cat. The Committee expressed concern with regard to instances of racism and xenophobia in society and continuing incidents of discrimination against Roma, including by local officials. It is not clear why the Committee raised such issues that had already been intensively dealt with under the cerd mechanism. The Committee further noted allegations of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials during and after demonstrations, particularly alleged instances of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of persons arrested and detained as a result of the demonstrations during the International Monetary Fund (imf)/World Bank meeting in Prague in September 2000. There had also been cases of inter-prisoner violence and bullying in various institutions, including prisons, the military and educational institutions. The Committee called upon the Czech Republic to ensure the independence of investigations of offences committed by law enforcement officials by introducing a mechanism of external control.
In its cos of 2012, the Committee was concerned that the new Czech Penal Code did not define torture and recommended to the Czech Republic to amend its Penal Code in order to include a definition of torture that covers all the elements contained in article 1 cat. The Committee further expressed concerns related to the acceptance of diplomatic assurances in relation to extraditions of persons to states where those persons would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Czech Republic did not provide information concerning the type of diplomatic assurances received or requested.
In its most recent cos of 2018, the Committee recalled its previous recommendation to adopt a definition of torture that covers all the elements contained in article 1 cat and takes into account the Committee´s General Comment 2 of 2007 on the implementation of article 2. Although the procedural guarantees are enshrined in Czech domestic legislation, the Committee
According to the Committee further legislative, administrative and other measures should be adopted in order to ensure that, for instance, all detained persons have the right to request and receive a medical examination by an independent medical doctor, including a doctor of their own choosing, from the outset of the deprivation of liberty, and that medical examinations are conducted out of hearing and out of sight of police officers and prison staff, unless the doctor concerned explicitly requests otherwise. The Health Care Services Act 372/2011 should be amended in order to explicitly provide for the obligation of healthcare professionals to report suspected cases of torture and ill-treatment to the relevant authorities. Reform was needed to strengthen the independence of the General Inspection of Security Forces so that all allegations of torture or ill-treatment made by persons deprived of their liberty will be promptly, impartially and effectively investigated and suspected perpetrators will be duly tried. The conditions of detention remained problematic in some respects. Also, the practice of detaining individuals seeking international protection, including those in particularly vulnerable situations, and the fact that the lack of alternative accommodation for families was subject to the Committee´s concern, especially with regard to the fact that asylum-seeking children and their families continued to be detained at the respective facility, often for periods of more than two months.
In our opinion, beyond the scope of cat, the Committee in its cos of 2018 again mentioned aspects related to the discrimination of the Roma minority in the field of education. This issue indeed was subject to discussion between the Czech delegation and Committee members in May 2019. Committee members argued that the ECtHR had not excluded the fact that the discriminatory treatment of a minority by the majority fell under article 3 of the European Convention. When the representatives of the Czech Republic pointed to the practices of other UN treaty bodies, Committee members recalled that each convention had its own set of specific obligations and legal distinctions. According to the Committee, the placement of children from minority groups in schools not suitable for their intellectual capacity constituted humiliating and degrading treatment as set forth in article 1 cat.
5.5.5
Although the Czech Republic has recognised the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications under article 22 cat, so far, no individual complaints have been submitted. Victims of torture or ill-treatment are more likely to file a complaint with the ECtHR rather than using the tool of individual communication under cat. So far, in 22 complaints against the Czech Republic complainants before the ECtHR alleged a violation of article 3 echr. Most complaints were found inadmissible.161
5.5.6 Impact of Other Measures
The Public Defender of Rights was established as an independent institution for the protection and promotion of human rights. In many ways the institution fulfils the requirements of the Paris Principles. The scope of operation and the powers of the Public Defender of Rights are regulated by a special law on the Public Defender of Rights. Since 2006 the Public Defender of Rights as the National Preventive Mechanism also deals with the supervision of the places where persons are restricted in personal liberty pursuant to op-cat.
In order to strengthen protection from torture and other forms of ill-treatment, the Public Defender of Rights is performing systematic visits to relevant facilities.162 The visits are carried out at places where freedom is restricted ex officio (prisons, police cells) and also in facilities providing care on which the recipients are dependent (retirement homes, treatment facilities for long-term patients). The Public Defender of Rights and his employees are authorised to enter all places in the facility, to inspect all records including medical records and to speak with all persons (employees, patients, prisoners, and so forth) without the presence of third persons. Systematic visits are performed without previous notification and may take place at any time of the day (including
In the past years, the Public Defender of Rights has issued proposals for the improvement of the situation found during the individual visits to the facilities and has also submitted generalised findings and systemic recommendations to the responsible governmental authorities. The Public Defender of Rights has detected a number of systematic problems related, for instance, to the care of the elderly, the unification of care for vulnerable children and the relocation of prisoners (as a means of preserving the family).
Summary reports are accessible to the public.163 Such reports deal, for instance, with the situation in facilities for institutional and protective education (2006); prisons (2006 and 2016); institutions of social care for adults with disabilities (2006); police facilities (2006 and 2017); facilities for long-term patients (2006 and 2017); facilities for the detention of foreigners (2006); facilities for institutional and protective education (2007); social service facilities for the elderly (2007); psychiatric treatment facilities (2008); homes for persons with disabilities (2009); remand prisons (2010); psychiatric treatment facilities (2010 and 2013); school facilities for institutional and protective education (2012); infant care centres (2013); preventive educational care centres (2013); diagnostic institutions (2013); and ‘sobering-up stations’ (2014).
At present, the team responsible for carrying out the duties of the National Preventive Mechanism is constituted by eight full-time lawyers and cooperates with 12 external experts during the systematic visits.
5.5.7 Brief Conclusion
The Czech Republic takes its obligations under cat very seriously. The experience of torture and ill-treatment used by the former Communist regime, particularly in relation to political prisoners, serves as a strong warning for the democratic country. The Czech Republic has been active in supporting the adoption of the op-cat providing for the establishment of a National Preventive Mechanism and was among the first countries to ratify op-cat. The protection against torture and ill-treatment is part of the constitutional order and stipulated in international human rights treaties to which the Czech Republic is a state party.
In Czech legal doctrine and judicial practice the most prominent place belongs to article 3 echr which is frequently referred to by Czech courts. Czech
It has to be noted that by introducing issues going beyond the scope of cat, such as the problem of discrimination in the field of education, the cat Committee might be weakening its credibility. In a situation in which the Committees under cerd and ccpr would be more competent to deal with such issues, the activist approach of the cat Committee might also endanger the consistency of the system of UN human rights treaty bodies.
5.6 Convention on the Rights of the Child
5.6.1 Incorporation and Reliance by Legislature and Executive
The Czech Republic is bound by the Convention as of 1 January 1993. crc as an international convention under article 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic is directly binding, and takes precedence over domestic law. Some rights under crc have been included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. Given the complexity of children’s rights that are contained in crc, it needs a number of legal Acts to properly implement the provisions of the Convention.164
On the political level, a National Strategy to Protect Children’s Rights was adopted by the government in 2012 covering the period from 2012 to 2018. The creation of this Strategy was prompted by the Committee’s cos from 2011 and other international organisations’ recommendations.165 The Strategy aims to create a system to consistently protect all rights of any child and to meet the child’s needs, a system to promote the improvement of the lives of children and families, eliminate discrimination and unequal approach to children, and promote the overall development of the child in the natural family or alternative family environments, as appropriate, with the child’s participation in
5.6.2 Reliance by Judiciary
The vast majority of decisions of the Constitutional Court that make reference to crc concern the rejection of constitutional complaints against decisions of general courts in family law matters. Such decisions most often deal with the situation of children after divorce, that is, decisions on the custody of a child, on the contact of a parent with the child who is under the custody of the other parent, and on alternate custody. There have been numerous complaints concerning maintenance obligations and the amount of maintenance. In these cases, the Constitutional Court usually confines itself to finding that the best interests of the child pursuant to article 3 crc have been observed in proceedings before the general courts.166 Exceptionally, the Constitutional Courts uses references to crc when it appeals to the parents (the complainants) to act in the best interests of the child.167
Article 3 crc is often used in combination with articles 9, 12 and 18 crc. Article 9 appears in particular in cases in which the Constitutional Court decides on the right of a child to maintain contact with parents who are dependent on alcohol or other drugs, or in cases concerning the extradition of the parents. Article 12 is used mainly in divorce cases when the courts need to ascertain the child’s opinion on intercourse with parents and the selection of an appropriate school. The Constitutional Court relies on article 18 mainly with regard to alternative care and the responsibility of parents for raising a child or their rights to raise a child.168
Apart from divorce proceedings, article 3 rarely appears in resolutions, for example in connection with home birth169 or the execution of imprisonment of one of the parents (especially the mother).170 Furthermore, article 7 appears
In the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the complainants invoke specific provisions not only of crc but also of the echr (most often article 8) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (in particular articles 32 and 36).
When the Constitutional Court found an infringement of one of the articles of crc, this was never the only ground for annulment of the contested decision of the general courts. The crc provisions are always used together with the relevant provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and sometimes with the echr. Of the articles of crc, article 12 (together with articles 36 or 38 of the Charter) appears most often as one of the violated provisions in the operative part of the judgments of the Constitutional Court. In those cases the Constitutional Court concluded that there had been a violation of the participation rights of the child in proceedings concerning, for instance, disputes between parents about the vaccination of a child or the choice of a primary school. There have been some cases of travelling on public transport without paying where the Constitutional Court annulled the decisions of the general courts, because the child who committed the misconduct, in violation of article 12, was not allowed to participate in the proceedings.
5.6.3 Impact on and through Non-state Actors
crc certainly is the most popular universal human rights convention, as far as media coverage is concerned. Looking at academic journals and textbooks, we find that there is a relatively high level of awareness about the Convention among the broad public. There are a number of national ngos dealing with different aspects of children’s rights. The protection of children’s rights is a very popular subject among students preparing a diploma or doctoral thesis.
5.6.4 Impact of State Reporting
The reporting history under crc shows that it is difficult to overcome certain structural problems related to children’s rights. In its co of 2003, the crc Cttee reiterated that the Czech Republic continued to deal with socio-economic problems related to the transition to a market economy such as the deterioration of living standards and unemployment. According to the Committee, persisting traditional societal attitudes further hampered the enactment of
The establishment of the institution of a Public Defender of Rights in the Czech Republic was seen by the crc Cttee as a positive step. However, as the mandate of the Public Defender was limited to action or inaction of the public sector, not all implementation aspects of the Convention were fully covered. According to the Committee, the Czech Republic should establish an independent body competent to deal with the investigation of individual complaints by children in a child-sensitive manner. Therefore, the mandate of the Public Defender should be broadened and supported with the necessary human and other resources. The establishing a separate independent children’s commissioner or ombudsperson was seen by the Committee as an adequate alternative.
Also in its co of 2011 the crc Cttee found that many of its concerns and recommendations have been addressed insufficiently or only partly and urged the Czech Republic to sufficiently implement the recommendations, particularly those related to the establishment of an independent body to oversee the implementation of the Convention, the collection of relevant data and the full integration of the right to non-discrimination. The Committee criticised the sectoral approach to the Convention, which had led to fragmentation of its implementation. In 2019, the Czech Government Council for Human Rights has identified the issue of guardianship as one of its major priorities. In the past, many promised steps were not fulfilled. Cooperation between Czech human rights institutions and the Ministry of Justice, for a long period, have been unsuccessful.
5.6.5 Impact of Individual Communications
Although the Czech Republic in 2015 accepted the instrument of an individual complaints procedure under the op-crc-cp, so far no individual communications have been submitted. This might be due to the fact that in the past, complaints concerning children’s rights have been submitted to the ECtHR and the HRCttee. In one of the most famous cases, dh & Others v the Czech Republic, the ECtHR decided that the applicants, 18 children of Roma origin, had been discriminated against by the Czech system of school education.
5.6.6
In principle, the Convention has been properly implemented in the Czech legal order. However, some pieces of legislation have not always translated into reality. So far, there is no institution of a children’s ombudsman in the Czech Republic, although the Committee has repeatedly called upon the Czech Republic to consider the establishment of an independent body monitoring the implementation of the Convention and leading sensitive investigation of individual children’s complaints. When national remedies for violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention are exhausted, a complaint can be lodged not only with the competent UN Committees but also with the ECtHR. His decisions are binding on the contracting states and, if the Court finds that there has been a breach of the Convention, it may at the same time grant the complainant fair compensation (financial compensation for material or non-material damage). However, the European Convention does not cover all rights under crc.
5.7 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
The Convention was ratified by the Czech Republic in 2017. The individual complaints procedure (article 31) and the inquiry procedure (article 33) under the Convention have been accepted. A Czech translation of the Covenant exists.171
5.7.1 Incorporation and Reliance by Legislature and Executive
Based on article 10 of the Czech Constitution,172 ced forms part of national law. Where the provisions of the treaty are at variance with those of a national legislative act, the international treaty prevails. The ban on enforced disappearance is constitutionally derived from article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees every individual’s personal liberty and provides that no one may be prosecuted or deprived of liberty other than on grounds and in the manner laid down by law. The Criminal Code173 covers enforced disappearance as a criminal act; however, it does not define enforced disappearance, nor does it establish the specific constituent elements of a criminal offence labelled as enforced disappearance. Nevertheless, conduct constituting enforced disappearance, as defined in the Convention, may be
5.7.2 Reliance by Judiciary
No reference in the decisions of the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court has been found. A reference to the Convention (article 16) was made in a decision of the Administrative Court (Regional Court in České Budějovice, ref 56 Az 1/2017–73), which cancelled a decision of the Ministry of Interior on the issue of international protection.
5.7.3 Impact on and through Non-state Actors
Given the recent ratification of the Convention, the level of awareness is rather low. Nevertheless, only a few months after ratification the first communication was submitted to the Committee. At the training facilities of the Police Education and Service Training Department, the topic of the protection of persons from the illegal restriction of personal liberty is mainly covered in the qualification courses Basic Training 2018, Public Order Police Qualification Courses, and Criminal Police and Investigation Service Qualification Courses. The above courses encompass the teaching of criminal and constitutional law, including analyses of the constituent elements of the relevant criminal acts. Training is also provided in relation to acts of detention and the possibility of the restriction or deprivation of personal liberty in accordance with the Act on the Police of the Czech Republic and the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reference to the Convention was found in the work of ngos (in their advocacy campaigns) or in academic research.
5.7.4 Impact of State Reporting
The initial report of the Czech Republic was submitted in May 2019.174 The report is descriptive and detailed, and follows the structure of the Convention. The Ministries of Justice, Interior, Labour and Social Affairs and Foreign Affairs are involved in the process of implementation of the Convention.
5.7.5
So far, one communication has been submitted to the Committee, but was discontinued after the matter had been resolved.175
5.7.6 Brief Conclusion
It is premature to assess the impact of the Convention as it was ratified only recently. The government submitted its initial report only in May 2019. So far, there is no feedback from the Committee. The first communication within the respective procedure was submitted very shortly after ratification. The Czech Republic has never had a member on the ced Cttee.
5.8 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
The Czech Republic ratified crpd in 2009, but has not ratified op-crpd.
5.8.1 Incorporation and Reliance by Legislature and Executive
In line with article 10 of the Constitution, the Convention was incorporated in the legal system of the Czech Republic and takes precedence over national law. From the perspective of implementation, the Czech legal system does not contain a unified definition of the terms ‘disability’ and ‘person with disability’. Thus, section 5(6) of the Anti-Discrimination Act states that
[d]isability is understood as physical, sensory, mental, intellectual or other disability which hinders or may hinder the persons in their right to equal treatment in areas defined by this law; whereas such disability must be of a long term character which has lasted or is supposed to have lasted at least one year according to the findings of the medical science.
The Anti-Discrimination Act provides for protection against direct and indirect discrimination based on disability in fields such as employment, entrepreneurship and other self-employed activities; membership of and activities in trade unions; membership and activities of professional associations; social security and social benefits; health care; education and training; and services that are offered to the public.
As for political programmes, the government has approved and given effect to a number of national plans which formulate the state policy concerning citizens with disabilities.176 Each ministry has to assess priorities in line with the national plans. The government annually reviews the accomplishment of the national plans. In its initial state report177 the Czech Republic maintained that the fulfilment of the national plans had probably improved the attitude of the state to persons with disabilities and promoted their social inclusion. The elemental form of the National Plan, both in content and structure, corresponds to the general principles on which the Convention is based. With reference to the individual articles of the Convention, the National Plan is divided into separate chapters. Besides a quotation of the relevant article of the Convention, each chapter also contains a concise description of the existing situation and goals to be achieved by the measures, and a group of fixed terms and continuous measures including an indication of the department in charge of their implementation.
The Czech Republic already in 1991 established the Government Board for People with Disabilities as its coordinating and advisory body for the problems surrounding disability.178 The Board, which consists of representatives of the government and ministries and representatives of associations of persons with disabilities and their employers, cooperates with the public administration authorities as well as with ngos. The Board is involved in the preparation of the national plans of action.
5.8.2 Reliance by Judiciary
As for the case law of the Constitutional Court, the crpd for the first time appeared in a finding concerning the requirements for detention review in a psychiatric hospital.179 The Constitutional Court found a violation of articles 8, 36 and 38 of the Constitutional Charter and article 5(4) of the echr. Articles 13(1) and 14(2) crpd are mentioned in relation to the obligation to adapt the procedure to persons with disabilities. In a second case the Constitutional Court dealt in more detail with the content and interpretation of crpd.180 In this case the Constitutional Court found that it was the duty of the regional authorities to ensure the availability of a suitable social care service to persons with disabilities. A violation of article 19 crpd was found in conjunction with articles 31 and 36 of the Constitutional Charter and article 11 cescr. The complainant himself, in addition to other human rights documents, explicitly relied on several articles of crpd, namely, articles 4(1) and (2), 5, 19 and 26(1)(a). Some of these are also dealt with in the recitals in the reasoning of the Constitutional Court.
The Highest Administrative Court has referred to crpd in several cases concerning issues of social security. In a judgment of 2017,181 the Court found that crpd was an international treaty, which due to its universality is not a law applicable directly within the meaning of article 10 of the Constitution of the
In a judgment of 2016,182 the Highest Administrative Court rejected an argument of the complainant based on article 28 crpd and decided that the Convention does not contain a provision under which the complainant could claim a special-purpose scholarship. In a case concerning the issue of invalidity pensions,183 the Highest Administrative Court recalled that crpd has been acceded to by both the Czech Republic and the EU and that the Convention thus became part of EU law. According to the Court, crpd does not imply that the Czech Republic undertakes to waive the legal regulation of invalidity pension from the principle of merit, or that it undertakes to equalise the amount of the invalidity pension with the minimum wage. The Court found that under article 4(2) of the Convention, states committed to undertake measures to the maximum extent of their resources. That does not necessarily mean that states are obliged to spend all income on invalidity pensions as the state is obliged to perform a large number of public tasks, which entail a considerable amount of expenditure, and their distribution largely is the result of political consensus. Therefore, according to the Court, the Czech Republic as a state party to crpd is not obliged to maintain the level of the invalidity pension benefits in a specific proportion to other expenses such as, for example, the level of the minimum wage as suggested by the complainant.
5.8.3 Impact on and through Non-state Actors
For the period from 2015 to 2019, we did not find references to crpd in the professional journals of the Czech Notarial Chamber, the Czech Executive Chamber and the Czech Bar Association. A number of publications of ngos use references to cat in articles concerning the protection of the rights of persons deprived of or limited in legal capacity, involuntary hospitalisation of
5.8.4 Impact of State Reporting
In its cos on the initial report the Czech Republic,184 adopted in 2015, the crpd Cttee welcomed the National Plan, the Anti-Discrimination Act, the amendment of the Building Act aiming at the creation of a barrier-free environment and concrete provisions in the Czech Civil Code for supported decision making. The Committee also appreciated the provision of assistance in proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure. However, a number of issues were the subject of concern. Under the Anti-Discrimination Act, as the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is limited to employment and related labour relations, the Committee suggested that the Czech Republic should extend the prohibition of denial of reasonable accommodation to other areas besides employment and labour relations. In line with Czech public policy, children with disabilities often end up in care institutions and support services for boys and girls with disabilities and their families in local communities are insufficiently developed. Therefore, the Committee called upon the Czech Republic to abandon the concept of residential institutional care for boys and girls with disabilities and to step up its efforts to develop support services for boys and girls with disabilities and their families in local communities.
As the Czech Civil Code provides for the possibility of limiting a person’s legal capacity and placing a person with a disability under partial guardianship, the crpd Cttee found that Czech legislation was not in full compliance with article 12 of the Convention and the Committee’s General Comment 1 on equal recognition before the law. It has to be noted that under the election legislation, persons with disabilities with restricted legal capacity may be denied the right to vote or to stand for election. Election materials reportedly are rarely accessible to blind persons or to persons with intellectual disabilities and polling stations often are not physically accessible.
It was not before 1 January 2018 (almost nine years after ratification of crpd) that the Public Defender of Rights became the independent monitoring body under the Convention that systematically watches over the rights of persons with disabilities. The Public Defender seeks to change systemic shortcomings that prevent persons with disabilities from fulfilling their rights and, to this end,
5.8.5 Brief Conclusion
According to the National Plan for the Promotion of Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities 2015–2020, which was approved by Resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic 385 of 25 May 2015, the position of persons with disabilities in the Czech Republic may be characterised as stabilised, supported by the existence of a solid legal framework, leaning mostly on positive attitudes of the majority. Indeed, important legislation has been adopted with respect to the social inclusion of persons with disabilities in the Czech Republic. The competent Czech courts are aware of the crucial provisions of crpd and frequently make reference to the Convention. However, as pointed out by the Public Defender of Rights, society’s attitudes to persons with disabilities must change to eliminate certain stereotypes and prejudices. The Public Defender, as the national independent monitoring body, has identified a number of structural weaknesses concerning the effective implementation of rights of persons with disabilities. In response to the initial report of the Czech Republic, the crpd Cttee has formulated a number of substantial concerns and recommendations.
6
With a view to its experience with undemocratic and totalitarian regimes violating basic human rights, today’s Czech Republic, as a liberal democracy fully integrated into the process of European integration, places considerable emphasis on the constitutional protection of human rights and on the implementation of both universal and regional human rights obligations into the national legal order. Human rights are also emphasised in the Czech foreign policy.
Whereas state authorities are fully aware of human rights norms adopted within the framework of UN treaty-based protection, in legal practice, that is, in legislation and adjudication, the role of European human rights treaties and especially the echr is more prominent. Legal practitioners, in principle, are aware that legally-binding judgments of the ECtHR have a stronger position in the legal discourse than soft law documents issued by the UN treaty bodies. Nevertheless, they also acknowledge the added value of UN documents which go beyond the narrower frame of the echr, for instance, in the fields of children’s rights, racial discrimination and social rights.
This chapter documents a rather low direct impact of the UN human rights treaties and tb recommendations on two illustrative examples: the issue of involuntary sterilisations and the restitution of property. As for the recommendations relating to national institutions, the Czech Republic still lacks a national human rights institution and a children’s ombudsperson.
Compared to the domestic impact as at 1999, this study presents information about the complex transformation in the fields of criminal and private law. The main objectives of the recodification, which was completed more than 20 years after the non-violent change of government in 1989, was to develop codes based on respect for European legal thought and to break with the ideology embodied in pre-1989 Communist law. Another very important piece of legislation adopted in the period covered by the study was the Anti-Discrimination Act of 2009, designed to strengthen the protection against discrimination in all major areas of social life.
Jitka Brodská works at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. The opinions expressed in this chapter are the author’s own and do not reflect the views of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
For an overview of the history of the Czech Republic, see Karolina Adamová, Antonín Lojdek and Karel Schelle (eds), Velké dějiny Zemí Koruny české (Praha; Litomyšl 2015).
L Šlehofer‚‘Ústavní vývoj v letech 1849–1989’ in P Mlsna (ed), Cesty české ústavnosti (Praha 2010) 70.
P Mlsna‚‘Ústavní a ústavněprávní vývoj po roce 1989’ in P Mlsna (ed), Cesty české ústavnosti (Praha 2010) 86.
For the constitutional development of the Czech Republic, see eg A Gerloch and J Kysela (eds), 20 let Ústavy České republiky. Ohlédnutí zpět a pohled vpřed (Plzeň, Čeněk 2013).
See art 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms: ‘The rights listed in Article 26, Article 27 para 4, Articles 28 to 31, Article 32 paras 1 and 3, Article 33, and Article 35 of this Charter may be claimed only within the confines of the laws implementing these provisions’.
For more details on the competencies of the Czech Constitutional Court, see Wagnerová a kol. Zákon o Ústavním soudu s komentářem (Praha, aspi 2007); V Sládeček, Ústavní soudnictví (2nd edn, Praha 2003).
Law No 349/1999. on the Public Defender of Rights.
§ 2 of Act 349/1999.
§ 1 para 3 of Act 349/1999. The amendment was introduced by Act 381/2005 Sb.
Act 198/2009 Sb.
§ 21b of Act 349/1999.
§ 21c of Act 349/1999.
The Government has not recently taken concrete steps; there were initiatives within the Senate of the Czech Republic (a seminar organised by a group of senators in October 2019).
The list of treaties of the Council of Europe ratified by the Czech Republic is available on the webpage of the Council of Europe, Treaty Office <
More information is available on the web page of the Council of Europe <
See eg Regular Report from the Commission on Czech Republic’s progress towards accession 2002, sec (2002) 1402 final, 9 October 2002.
The document is accessible at the website of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs <
Ruling of the Constitutional Court No 403/2002.
For more details, see P Mlsna ‘Příprava, vznik a problémy spojené s euronovelou Ústavy čr‘(2013) 59(4) auc iuridica 33.
On the motivation for ratifying the first six treaties, see Alena Kroupova and Pavel Bilek, ‘Czech Republic’ in Christof Heyns and Frans Viljoen (eds), The Impact of the UN Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level (Kluwer Law International 2002) 201–202.
a/hrc/wg.6/28/cze/1 – National report submitted in accordance with para 5 of the annex to hrc Resolution 16/21 3.
‘UN Committee Against Torture Calling on the Czech Republic to Establish the National Human Rights Institution by Increasing Powers of the Ombudsman’ <
<
For example, the first report to cerd was submitted with a delay of more than two years, the last one with a four-month delay; the first report to ccpr was submitted with a delay of more than six years, the third one with a one-month delay.
Resolution of the Government 809 of 9 December 1998.
The information on the Council and the Statute of the Council is available at <
The position of the Commissioner for Human Rights was established by Resolution of the Government 579/1998 dated 9 September 1998.
Initial Report of the Czech Republic on the Implementation of ccpr for the Period 1993–1999, ccpr/cze/2000/ 1.
cat (cat/c/cze/co/6 paras 28–29), cerd (cerd/c/cze/co/12–13 paras 19–20), ccpr (ccpr/c/cze/co/4 paras 22–23).
In a decision adopted by the Committee in July 2019, it was considered that the authors had not exhausted the available domestic remedies and that the communication is inadmissible under art 4(1) of op1-ccpr.
ccpr/c/cze/q/3/Add.1 11.
Ruling of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. Pl.ÚS 33/96 ze dne 4. 6. 1997.
Communication 516/1992 (Šimůnek), Communication 586/1994 (Adam).
Ruling of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. Pl.ÚS 33/96 ze dne 4. 6. 1997.
Act 349/1999 Coll. of 8 December 1999 on the Public Defender of Rights.
e/c.12/cze/q/2/Add1 4.
On the history of Roma integration in Czechoslovakia, see L Fonádová, Nenechali se vyloučit: sociální vzestupy Romů v české společnosti (kvalitativní studie) (Brno: Masarykova univerzita 2014) 22–25.
cerd – Czech Republic – cerd/c/sr.1254 (1998) paras 12 and 13.
The Commission was established through the Resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic of 17 September 1997 No 581.
Eg § 219 para 2, § 221 para 2 and § 222 para 2 of the Penal Code (Law No 140/1961). Law No 140/1996 was replaced by a new Penal Code in 2009 (Law No 40/2009) which contains similar provisions (eg § 140 para 2).
European Commission, The European Union and Roma – Factsheet Czech Republic (2014) <
The case deals with the discrimination of Roma children in the education system of the Czech Republic. Whereas the Chamber of the European Court did not find a violation in the case, the Grand Chamber found that because of their ethnic origin Roma children did not have equal access to education.
iii.ÚS 1136/13 ze dne 12. 8. 2015.
30 Cdo 4277/2010.
See eg the regular reports of the non-governmental organisations Liga lidských práv. In iustitia and Sdružení pro migraci a integraci.
Jachanová Doležalová, Alexandra and others, Prosadzování genderové rovnosti: vybraná témata (Praha: Česká ženská lobby 2009) 4–9.
cerd/c/304/Add.4 para 12.
ibid para 13.
cerd/c/304/Add.109 para 4.
cerd/c/63/co/4 paras 9 and 15.
cerd/c/cze/co/7 para 5.
ibid para 14.
In 2008 the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion arguing that the Czech Republic was not acting in compliance with its obligations under EU law.
cerd/c/cze/co/8–9 para 12.
ibid 19.
cerd/c/cze/co/10–11/Add.1 paras 3–11.
ibid 12–13.
cerd Decision 2 (53) on the Czech Republic (11 August 1998).
For more details on the case of Matiční street, see the 1999 Report of the State of Human Rights in the Czech Republic which the Government Commissioner for Human Rights and Chairman of the Council for Human Rights of the government of the Czech Republic submitted to the government under Government Resolution 278 of 7 April 1999. The document is available at the website of the Czech government <
The Covenant was promulgated in a communication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under No 120/1976 of Coll.
Art 10 of the Constitution.
Second periodic reports of state parties, ccpr/c/cze/2.
Act 40/2009 Coll Criminal Code.
Act 89/2012 Coll Civil Code.
Act 90/2012 Coll, the Act on Business Corporations.
Act 91/2012 Coll, the Act on Private International Law.
Such as Constitutional Law No 100/1960 Coll – the Constitution of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic.
Act 198/2009 Coll, on equal treatment and on legal means of protection against discrimination and amending certain laws.
Resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic 527 dated 22 May 2002.
Comments by the government of the Czech Republic, Follow-up state party report, cpr/co/72/cze/Add.1, 27 February 2003.
Reports are available in Czech on the web page of the Ministry of Justice and are regularly submitted to the government of the Czech Republic <
Opening Statement by the Head of the Delegation of the Czech Republic, Ms Andrea Baršová, Head of the Human Rights Department-Office of the Government of the Czech Republic, Presentation of the third periodic report of the Czech Republic, Human Rights Committee, 108th Session (16 and 17 July 2013).
See eg the interpellation by Member of Parliament of the Czech Republic Ms Olga Richterová dated 1 August 2019, relating to the policy of the government towards China (Interpelace poslankyně Olgy Richterové na předsedu vlády Andreje Babiše ve věci vládní politiky vůči Číně v souvislosti se zprávami o soustavném porušování lidských práv včetně obchodu s nezákonně odebíranými lidskými orgány).
Art 95 para 1 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
In our research, we studied 226 decisions of the Constitutional Court. In 32 cases, the Court used references to the Covenant in its argumentation to annul either a decision of a court (19 cases) or of a public prosecutor’s office or police (9 cases – Finding ii. ÚS 860/10 dated 2 September 2010, violation of art 17 of ccpr: questioned inspection of premises; Finding ii.ÚS 1414/07 dated 15 July 2010 – house inspection, violation of art 17; Finding ii.ÚS 79/07 dated 19 June 2007, violation of art 14 of ccpr, violation of prohibition of forced self-accusation, Finding I. ÚS 636/05 dated 21 August 2006, violation of art 14 of ccpr, forced self-accusation, Finding ii. ÚS 642/04 dated 8 March 2006, forced self-accusation, violation of art 14 of ccpr, Finding I.ÚS 671/05 dated 22 February 2006, violation of art 14 of ccpr, forced self-accusation; Finding ii.ÚS 89/04 dated 2 February 2006, imposition of an order fine, Finding ii.ÚS 552/05 dated 12 January 2006, violation of art 14 of ccpr, forced self-accusation; Finding iii.ÚS 561/04 dated 10 March 2005, violation of art 14 of ccpr, forced self-accusation). In six cases (Finding pl.ÚS 18/15 dated 28 June 2016 – a provision of the law on income tax annulled, violation of art 26 of ccpr (cited together with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic), equality and non-discrimination; Finding pl. ÚS 1/12 dated 27 November 2012, compliance with the prohibition of forced labour, art 8 of ccpr; Finding Pl. ÚS 47/04 dated 8 March 2005, violation of art 26 of ccpr, prohibition of non-discrimination, law on public auctions; Finding Pl. ÚS 28/98 dated 23 November 1999, violation of art 14 of ccpr; Finding Pl. ÚS 2/97 dated 2 July 1997, violation of art 9 of ccpr, law on the police of the Czech Republic; Finding Pl. ÚS 30/95 dated 10 January 1996, violation of art 14 of ccpr, Civil Procedure Code); references were made in the findings of the Constitutional Court which annulled a provision of a law (law on income tax, on public auction, on the police, Civil Procedure Code). The Constitutional Court often refers to the art 14 of the Covenant (fair trial); art 26 (equality before the law and non-discrimination); art 25 (public participation); and art 9 (right to liberty and security of person).
The list of seminars organised by the Czech Judicial Academy in the area of constitutional and human rights law is available on the web page of the Judicial Academy.
Third periodic reports of state parties, ccpr/c/cze/3.
Information is available at <
Information is available at <
Information is available at <
Information is available at <
So far, the Czech Republic presented four reports to the Committee. The initial report for the years 1993–1999 was submitted in 2000. According to the provisions of art 40 para 1 of the Covenant, the Czech Republic should have submitted the initial report by 31 December 1993 (a delay of six years and two months). The second periodic report was due in 2005. However, it was submitted in May 2006 (a delay of eight months). The third report was submitted in 2011 (a delay of one month). The fourth periodic report was due to be submitted on 26 July 2018 and was received in August 2018.
Eighteen thematic reports by civil society were the subject to our study. To give a few examples and provide an idea of topics covered by the reports: two briefings of the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children from July 2017 and March 2013 which cover the legality of corporal punishment of children in the Czech Republic. There was one report submitted by the Conscience and Peace Tax International on the topic of conscientious objection to military service in March 2017. The Amnesty International Report from 2006 touches upon three topics: forced sterilisation of women; discrimination against Roma; and racially-motivated attacks on Roma.
ccpr/c/cze/q/3/Add.1 11.
ccpr/c/cze/4 12.
ccpr/c/cze/co/3/Add.3 para 10.
This case Červeňáková v Czech Republic was also heard by the European Court of Human Rights (Application 26852/09). However, as the applicant failed to inform the court of the compensation awarded at national level, her application was found to be inadmissible.
rk v Czech Republic (Application 7883/08) and Ferenčíková v Czech Republic (Application 21826/10).
Maděrová v Czech Republic (Application 32812/13).
ccpr/c/cze/4 11.
Initiative of 27 September 2019 by a group of members of parliament of the Czech Republic: H Válková, J Pastuchová, L Dražilová, P Golasowská, M Pekarová Adamová, K Schwarzenberg, M Novák, A Gajdůšková, E Matyášová.
Miroslav Klain and Eva Klain v the Czech Republic (Communication 1847/2008, views adopted on 1 November 2011); Oldřiška (Olga) Junglingova v the Czech Republic (Communication 1563/2007, view adopted on 24 October 2011); Adolf Lange v the Czech Republic (Communication 1586/2007, views adopted on 13 July 2011); Victor Drda v the Czech Republic (Communication 1581/2007, views adopted on 27 October 2010); Bohuslav Zavřel v the Czech Republic (Communication 1615/2007, views adopted on 27 October 2010); Nancy Gschwind v the Czech Republic (Communication 1742/2007, views adopted on 27 October 2010); Nikolaus First Blucher von Wahlstatt v the Czech Republic (Communication 1491/2007, views adopted on 27 October 2010); Jaroslav and Alena Slezák v the Czech Republic (Communication 1574/2007, views adopted on 20 July 2009); Olga Amundson v the Czech Republic (Communication 1508/2006, views adopted on 17 March 2009); Jaroslav Persan v the Czech Republic (Communication 1479/2006, views adopted on 24 March 2009); Richard Preiss v the Czech Republic (Communication 1497/2006, views adopted on 17 July 2008); Ivanka Kohoutek v the Czech Republic (Communication 1448/2006, views adopted on 17 July 2008); Zdenek Vlček v the Czech Republic (Communication 1485/2006, views adopted on 10 July 2008); Josef Lněnička v the Czech Republic (Communication 1484/2006, views adopted on 25 March 2008); Miroslav Susser v the Czech Republic (Communication 1488/2006, views adopted on 25 March 2008); Zdenek and Milada Ondracka v the Czech Republic (Communication 1533/2006, views adopted on 31 October 2007); Peter and Eva Gratzinger v the Czech Republic (Communication 1463/2006, views adopted on 25 October 2007); Libuse Polackova and Joseph Polacek v the Czech Republic (Communication 1445/2006, views adopted on 24 July 2007); Zdeněk Kříž v the Czech Republic (Communication 1054/2002, views adopted on 1 November 2005); Bohumír Mařík v the Czech Republic (Communication 945/2000, views adopted on 26 July 2005); Alžběta Pezoldová v the Czech Republic (Communication 757/1997, views adopted on 25 October 2002); Eliška Fábryová v the Czech Republic (Communication 765/1997, views adopted on 20 October 2001); Robert Brok (Communication 774/1997, views adopted 31 October 2001); Karel Des Fours Walderode v the Czech Republic (Communication 747/1997, views adopted 30 October 2001); Miroslav Blažek, George A Hartman and George Krizek v the Czech Republic (Communication 857/1999, views adopted on 12 July 2001); Josef Frank Adam v the Czech Republic (Communication 586/1994, views adopted on 23 July 1996); Alina Simunek, Dagmar Hastings Tuzilova and Josef Prochazka v the Czech Republic (Communication 516/1992, views adopted on 19 July 1995).
ccpr/c/cze/4 2.
Communication 823/1998.
Communication 765/2000.
Reports are available at <
ccpr/c/sr.2465 4.
e/c.12/cze/3 4.
Resolution of the Czech Republic Government 113 of 7 February 2001.
Special emphasis is put on the development of human individuality; the strengthening of social cohesion; promotion of democracy and civic society; education towards partnership; cooperation and solidarity; increasing competitiveness of the economy; and social prosperity.
The Government Council for Sustainable Development of the Czech Republic.
Statute of the Government Council for Older Persons and Population Ageing.
In one finding of the Court (Pl. 2/15), referring to art 12, a reference to the criticism of cescr was found (issue of access of foreigners to the public health insurance). The same finding relied on three cescr General Comments – General Comment 3 on the Nature of States Parties´ Obligations; 14 on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health; and 20 on Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Constitutional Court used references to the Covenant in two decisions which annulled the decision of a court (2613/17 and 615/17). The Constitutional Court annuls legal regulations or their parts that are in conflict with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic or with an international treaty. The Constitutional Court made reference to cescr in seven decisions which annulled an act or its part (Pl. 1/12 – the Court annulled several provisions of the Act on Medical Services, Pl. 83/06 – several provisions of the Labour Code, Pl. 51/06 – several provisions of the Law on Public Non-profit Medical Institutional Facilities, Pl. 40/02 – Act on collective bargaining, Pl. 2/03 – Government regulation on rent of flats).
Case 15 Tz 47/2002, 28 Cdo 2331/2013, 28 Cdo 2680/2009 or 21Cdo 3160/2009.
Cases 15 Tz 47/2002, 5 Tz 40/2003, 5 Tz 8/2001, 15 Tz 67/2003, 5 Tz 26/2001.
Cases 21 Cdo 2489/2000 and 21 Cdo 2104/2001 – reference to art 8/d (right to strike), 21 Cdo 1486/2005 – reference to art 7 (right to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work), 21 Cdo 1803/2003 – reference to art 6 (right to work).
Legal framework and policies of the government of the Czech Republic in the field of housing <
e/c.12/cze/q/2/Add1 3.
e/c.12/cze/q/2/Add1 4.
e/c.12/cze/3, 4, 6.
The most often used name of this subject, which is the basic one in providing education to citizenship in the vocational education system, is civics. The issue of the position of men, women and minorities in society is also represented in topics of subjects such as civics and history, but also in vocational subjects (dealing with issues of psychology, law and economy related to the relevant specialisations).
Report available at <
Report available at <
Report available at <
Report available at <
Report available at <
Several thematic reports by civil society were the subject of our study. In 2013 the League of Human Rights provided a submission concerning the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work and the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. In the same year the Mental Disability Advocacy Centre, the European Disability Forum, and the League of Human Rights submitted a joint report on the rights of children with disabilities to education and their right to be free from discrimination. The League of Human Rights also provided two written submissions to the Committee for consideration when compiling the List of Issues on the Second Periodic Report – one concerned the special protection of young children suspected of having committed an unlawful act and the implementation of the right to the highest attainable standard of health; the second the right to the highest attainable standard of health with respect to children who are subject to compulsory immunisation, the special protection of mothers in relation to childbirth and the right to just and favorable conditions of work in public hospitals taken together with the right to the highest attainable standard of health of doctors and patients.
So far, the Czech Republic has presented three reports to the Committee. The initial report for the years 1993–1999 was submitted in August 2000. The Czech Republic should have submitted the initial report by 30 June 1995 (a delay of five years and one month). The second periodic report was due in 2007. It was submitted in December 2010 (a delay of three years and five months). The third report was submitted in September 2019 and covers the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018.
e/c.12/cze/co/2.
e/c.12/1/Add.76.
See the list of strategies and action plans adopted in part (b) Incorporation and reliance by legislature and executive.
Discrimination of Roma in the field of education – see the chapter on cerd.
See the information on the webpage of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs <
See also chapters on cerd, ccpr and cedaw.
cedaw was published in the Collection of Laws under No 62/1987 Coll.
Act 198/2009 Coll, on Equal Treatment and Legal Protections against Discrimination and amending certain laws.
Government Council for Gender Equality <
<
Government Strategy for Equality of Women and Men in the Czech Republic for 2014–2020 <
Office of the Public Defender of Rights, Discrimination in the Czech Republic, Victims of Discrimination and Obstacles Hindering Their Access to Justice, 2015. Final Report on the Research of the Public Defender of Rights.
ibid 12.
cedaw/c/cze/6 12.
The list of seminars organised by the Judicial Academy is available at <
Available at <
Policy papers are available at <
In 1995 the Czech Republic submitted to the cedaw Cttee an initial report on the Convention for the years 1993–1994 (a delay of one year and six months). The Committee reviewed the report on 26 and 27 January 1998. At its meeting of 8 August 2002, the Committee reviewed the second periodic report of the Czech Republic for the period from 1 January 1995 to 30 June 1999, which was submitted in March 2000. The third periodic report of the Czech Republic for the period from 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2003 was reviewed by the Committee on 17 August 2006 (submitted in August 2004, a delay of two years and five months). The joint fourth and fifth periodic report of the Czech Republic for the period from 1 January 2004 to 31 July 2008 was reviewed by the Committee in October 2010 (submitted in April 2009). The sixth report was submitted in November 2014 and considered in February 2016. The seventh report is due in March 2020.
cedaw/c/cze/co/5/Add.1.
cedaw/c/cze/co/6/Add.1.
Written information on steps taken to implement the recommendations of the cedaw Cttee on support for increased representation of women in politics <
Resolution of the Government 155 of 27 February 2017.
Zpráva za rok 2017 o stavu vyřizování stížností podaných proti čr k mezinárodním orgánům ochrany lidských práv, str. 26.
cedaw/c/73/d/102/2016 (19 July 2019), decided just after the cut off date for this study. The case relates to the issue of illegal sterilisation of six women who were not provided an effective remedy. In a decision adopted by the Committee in July 2019, it was considered that the authors had not exhausted the available domestic remedies and that the communication was inadmissible under article 4(1) of op-cedaw.
The Government Strategy for Equality of Women and Men in the Czech Republic for 2014–2020, Office of the Government, 2014 26.
ibid 12.
cedaw/c/cze/6 12.
See the chapter on ccpr.
An example of the contribution of the Public Defender of Rights to the discussion on the sterilisations of Romani women: Final Statement of the Public Defender of Rights in the Matter of Sterilisations Performed in Contravention of the Law and Proposed Remedial Measures, Brno, 2005; a leaflet on the issue of discrimination on the basis of sex <
Information on the Public Defender of Rights support to the victims of discrimination is available at <
See the chapter (b) Incorporation and reliance by legislature and executive; information on the activities of the Government Council for Equal Opportunities, including minutes from the meetings is available at <
Article in electronic media <
Examples of articles in electronic media <
Invitation to a seminar <
Czech Republic National Preventive Mechanisms (arts 17–23 of op-cat) <
Judgment of the Highest Administrative Court in Case 4 Tz 89/2008.
So, eg, in its judgment of 25 September 2013 in Case 30 Cdo 4198/2010, the Highest Administrative Court only recalled that under art 4 of cat it is the duty of the state to assess cases of inhuman treatment as a criminal offence under the Criminal Code.
Case N 34/44 SbNU 417.
Case N 17/44 SbNU 217.
Case N 151/82 SbNU 385.
cat/c/21/Add.2.
A/56/44 para 108.
In the case of Bureš v the Czech Republic, the Court in 2012 dealt with the circumstances in a Czech ‘sobering-up centre’. The disorientated complainant was strapped to a bed, even though he presented no danger to himself or others. The straps caused injuries to his wrists with the result that his ability to play the cello was impaired. Following his release, Mr Bureš brought a criminal complaint against the hospital and its staff. In this case the European Court found the Czech government responsible for the unjustified use of restraints. The Court criticised the use of restraints as a violation of the right to freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment under article 3 echr. The complainant received compensation for this human rights violation.
Protection of Persons Restricted in their Freedom <
Reports for the Chamber of Deputies of Parliament <
Such as Act 94/1963 Coll on the family; 140/1961 Coll the Criminal Code; 141/1961 Coll the Criminal Procedure Code; 40/1964 Coll The Civil Code; 99/1963 Coll the Civil Procedure Code; 65/1965 Coll the Labour Code; 50/1973 Coll on foster care; 100/1988 Coll on social security; 114/1988 Coll on the responsibilities of the Czech social security authorities; 29/1984 Coll on elementary and secondary schools (Schools Act); 97/1963 Coll on private international law and rules of procedure; 498/1990 Coll on refugees; and Act 117/95 Coll on state social support, all as subsequently amended.
Government Resolution No. 4 of 4 January 2012 on the National Strategy for the Protection of Children’s Rights.
Eg ecli:cz:US:2018:4.US.2458.18.1; ecli:cz:US:2018:3.US.1064.17.2; ecli:cz:US:2018:3.US.346.18.1.
Eg ecli:cz:US:2018:3.US.346.18.1; ecli:cz:US:2018:2.US.2507.18.1.
Eg ecli:cz:US:2018:1.US.714.18.1.
Eg ecli:cz:US:2012:Pl.US.26.11.1.
Eg ecli:cz:US:2017:1.US.3296.17.1. For a more detailed analysis, see hauptfleischová, I. Právo na styk dítěte s vězněným rodičem. Jurisprudence, 2/2018, 14–25.
ced was published in the Collection of Laws under No 13/2017 Coll.
Act 1/1993, the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
Act 40/2009, the Criminal Code, as amended.
ced/c/cze/1.
Iureva v Czech Republic (Communication 2/2017 of June 2017) related to the extent of the state party’s obligation to provide information as to the whereabouts of a person. The author of the communication (a national of the Russian Federation) submitted that her daughter had disappeared with her husband in October 2015, and had last been seen in the Czech Republic in December 2015. The state party confirmed that the alleged victim and her husband were in the Czech Republic and that they were well but did not wish their location to be revealed. In April 2018, the author advised that her daughter had been located. As the allegations raised by the author were directly linked to the individual situation of her daughter, which had been resolved, the Committee considered that the subject matter of the submitted complaint was moot and decided to discontinue the consideration of communication. The state cooperated during the procedure. Information on the communication was published in the report of the government agent for the year 2017. The Ministry of Justice and the Police of the Czech Republic were involved.
Information on the Government Board for People with Disabilities <
crpd/c/cze/1.
Government Board for Persons with Disabilities <
ecli:cz:US:2015:1.US.1974.14.3.
ecli:cz:US:2018:2.US.3169.16.1.
3 Ads 151/2016–59.
5 As 40/2016 – 59.
4 Ads 283/2015–53.
crpd/c/cze/co/1.
Doc. No. mzdr 28667/2017–4/ozs.
Opinion of the Public Defender of Rights on the Communication from the Czech authorities concerning enforcement of the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of dh & Others v the Czech Republic <