Skip Navigation

Czech Republic Results Report 2020-2022

The 2020–2022 action plan of the Czech Republic yielded early results in judicial transparency and whistleblower protection. While implementation of several commitments was transferred to the next action plan, new synergies were built between public administration and civil society.

Early Results

Commitments 1 and 2 on judicial transparency and whistleblower protection, flagged in the Action Plan Review as promising, yielded early results. The remaining commitments were either not fully implemented (Commitments 3 and 4) or their results have not yet manifested (Commitment 5).

Major results were achieved in judicial transparency (Commitment 1). At the end of the implementation period, more than 350,000 decisions of district, regional, and high courts were published in the new database administered by the Ministry of Justice. Enactment of a law obliging the courts to publish the selected decision facilitated success.

On whistleblowing protection, only marginal results were accomplished (Commitment 2). The public administration’s active approach in adopting methodological guidance, training, and support to public bodies in establishing internal reporting mechanisms somewhat compensated for the protracted process of adopting the new whistleblower legislation. Cooperation with civil society organizations (CSOs) and the impending deadline of the EU Whistleblower Directive’s transposition proved crucial in achieving these results. The marginal results in whistleblower protection are owed to the redrafting of the new act on whistleblower protection after the 2021 parliamentary elections. Public-awareness activities linked to the adoption of the new bill were delayed accordingly.


Out of five commitments included in the 2020–2022 action plan, only two were fully implemented. The improvement is most remarkable in judicial transparency (Commitment 1) where implementation progress was lacking in previous years due to technical and budgetary constraints.[1] The obligation to publish court decisions in law and the long-term efforts of all stakeholders were behind the success of judicial transparency. Commitment 5, on public grant transparency, was completed ahead of schedule, but it was of a consultative nature, mapping waters for more meaningful future reform. Commitment 2, on whistleblower protection, had limited implementation. Commitment 4, on participation in decision-making, had substantial completion. Here, the active participation of CSOs and good practice of shared the role of chair in the working committee yielded concrete outcomes in the form of a methodology that is accepted by all stakeholders. Commitment 3, on open data in education, was transferred to the next action plan with a new implementation strategy.

The length of public procurement procedures is among the main factors blocking substantial progress of commitment implementation. A complete revamp of the implementation strategy in open data in education and subsequent procurement delayed implementation of Commitment 3. Similarly, public procurement for the public-awareness campaign for Commitment 2 is ongoing. The decision to link the campaign to the adoption of new legislation has hampered implementation of planned activities.

Participation and Co-Creation

The Open Government Partnership contact point remained with the Anti-Corruption Unit of the Ministry of Justice. As in the previous implementation period, the Multi-Stakeholder Forum (MSF) meets as the Working Commission on Open Government and State Administration Transparency once every three months to discuss and oversee the implementation of the action plan. No major innovations were adopted in the co-creation process or MSF’s functioning. While the co-creation process of the 2020–2022 action plan has not attracted many stakeholders outside the already engaged actors, new synergies between public administration and CSOs were formed during implementation of commitments on whistleblower protection and public engagement in decision-making (Commitments 2 and 4). The agency implementing Commitment 4 tested (as a new practice) and saw good results with sharing the role of chair of the working committee between CSOs and public administration.

Implementation in Context

The 2021 parliamentary elections impacted the implementation of multiple commitments. Commitment 2 was particularly affected, as the expiry of the deputies’ mandate led to a delay of more than a year in implementation and the redrafting of the draft bill on whistleblower protection. Civil society criticized the redraft of the whistleblowing law.[2] A complete change in implementation strategy, in terms of sources of financing and scheduling, has moved Commitment 3 on open data in education to the next action plan. The interviewed stakeholders mentioned the administrative challenges of public procurement, limited personal capacity, and budgetary constraints as common factors hindering meaningful reforms.[3] From among the public administration bodies, the OGP process is dominated by the Ministry of Justice, which was responsible for the implementation of four out of five commitments in the 2020–2022 action plan. While political commitment to the OGP process is necessary, a fresh approach to engaging a more diverse set of public bodies, experts, and CSOs could strengthen open government projects.

[1] IRM, Czech Republic Transitional Results Report 2018–2020,

[2] Jan Dupák (Transparency International), information provided to IRM during prepublication period, 14 April 2023.

[3] František Kučera, and Johana Trešlová (Anti-Corruption Unit, Ministry of Justice), interview with IRM, 13 February 2023; Přemysl Sezemský (Ministry of Justice), interview with IRM, 21 February 2023; Lukáš Kraus (Frank Bold), interview with IRM, 20 February 2023.


No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open Government Partnership