In Conversation with Petr Angyalossy, Chief Justice of the Czech Republic

Pictured Above: JUDr. Petr Angyalossy, Ph.D., President of the Czech Supreme Court (Photo Courtesy of the Czech Supreme Court)

Since the World Justice Project (WJP) launched its WJP Rule of Law Index in 2015, the Czech Republic (or Czechia) has consistently ranked within the top 25 nations worldwide for its policies and practices that promote the rule of law. It also has always outranked the United States.

Of course, the Rule of Law Index is an imperfect proxy, but the index gives the Czech Republic solid marks for safeguarding the rule of law, despite worrying trends in nearby Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia. This is even more remarkable considering that the Czech Republic was under communist rule until the November 1989 Velvet Revolution restored democracy and an independent judiciary.

In November 2024, David Collins, Acting Judge of the New Zealand Court of Appeal and chair of the Judicature International editorial board, spoke with JUDr. Petr Angyalossy, Ph.D.,¹ President of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, about his perspective on the current state of the judiciary, its core strengths, and the challenges it faces.

The following transcript of their conversation has been edited for style and clarity.

---

David Collins: I see that you graduated in 1993, but you became a judge very shortly thereafter in 1996. So, you have effectively been a career judge for almost all your professional life.

JUDr. Petr Angyalossy: Yes, it could be said so, but I had it a bit difficult. Because of the communist regime, I couldn’t initially study law. I worked at a railway station, as a fireman, as a driving school lecturer, in a construction company, and as a bus driver. After the revolution, I was allowed to study law. I was a law student alongside working other jobs, and that’s why I finished my law study in 1993. It was my dream to be a judge, and after graduation from law school, I could step into the judiciary.

Collins: As I understand it, you were appointed President of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic in May of 2020. That’s a 10-year appointment. So, you are almost coming to the halfway mark of your term as the President.

JUDr. Angyalossy: Yes, that’s true. When I was appointed, there were many candidates for the position. The President of the Supreme Court is chosen by the President [of the Czech Republic] alone. He can choose between any of the judges on the Supreme Court, of which there are 72.

One day I got a phone call asking if I would agree to being one of the candidates. It was an honor, but it was not my target to be President of the Supreme Court. I felt lucky to simply be a judge of the Supreme Court.

When I got the phone call, I told them, “Okay, I am not against it,” because I had many plans to push the judiciary forward, and that’s why I agreed to become a candidate. Then I took part in many, many interviews with different people. In the last round, it was a discussion with the State President. After this discussion, I was told they would call me if I was the chosen candidate.

And then maybe one week after this discussion with the State President, I got a phone call telling me that I should go to Prague Castle to be appointed the President of the Supreme Court.

I don’t know what was interesting to the State President in my plan. [At Prague Castle], we had a longer, maybe even two-hour discussion. He asked me many things about my experience before I studied law. He found it interesting that I have experience from other points of view, not only as lawyer, because I worked in different jobs before becoming a judge.

It was funny, maybe one year after my appointment, I asked him what he found so interesting that made him choose me and he said, “I don’t need a reason for my decision, and I decided you will be the President of the Supreme Court.”

So now I am!

Collins: That’s wonderful. What do you see as being the biggest challenge to the rule of law in the Czech Republic today?

JUDr. Angyalossy: Fortunately, nowadays there are no significant challenges for the rule of law in the Czech Republic. This stability reflects the country’s commitment to maintaining high standards of justice and governance. As a member of the European Union, we uphold the essential standards of the rule of law through robust legislation and alignment with EU regulations. This fosters a stable legal environment.

The rule of law remains a crucial foundation for any democratic society, and it supports fair and impartial judicial processes, ensures accountability, and protects citizens’ rights by adhering to principles shared across the European Union. The Czech Republic benefits from a system that promotes legal certainty, fairness, and effective enforcement of law, which are essential for the public trust in social cohesion.

Regular collaboration with European Union bodies also supports the Czech Republic in maintaining transparency and continuous improvement in upholding the rule of law. So, I can say we don’t have any significant problems.

Collins: Are there any threats to the independence of the judiciary in the Czech Republic?

JUDr. Angyalossy: I can say that our judiciary is independent. We don’t have problems with our independence. We don’t feel any forces or any bribes from politicians to influence our decisions. We don’t have problems in this area.

However, politicians don’t always have the same respect for the judiciary and will sometimes use media to unfairly attack judges and court opinions.

Collins: As a member of the European Union, you will watch very carefully how judges in other jurisdictions function and operate. Do you see any challenges to the independence of judges elsewhere in the European Union?

JUDr. Angyalossy: What I see is that there are more problems in Poland than in Hungary. In last month it could be said that there are problems in the Slovakian judiciary. Because these three countries are our neighbors, I see that they are having problems with the independence of the judiciary, and the politicians are trying to amend the law to have more influence over the judiciary and to take away their independence.

Collins: Do you communicate with your colleagues in Eastern European countries where there might be threats to the independence of judges, and do you provide guidance or assistance or just help them in any way you can?

JUDr. Angyalossy: We have the network of the Presidents of the Supreme Courts of the European Union. That means not only the eastern European countries, but the whole European Union. And through this network, we cooperate very, very closely. We meet regularly. We know each other like friends, not just colleagues. Most of them are my very good friends. And so we can exchange our experiences and we can tell each other what the real problems [are] — not the official, but the real problems in our countries.

Collins: Can I just ask some questions about how people in the Czech Republic are educated about the role of the judiciary? Do you have any programs where you televise your court proceedings or undertake educational programs?

JUDr. Angyalossy: It is a bit sad that young people don’t have enough information. In my opinion, our schools are not teaching enough about the judiciary. Many young people are coming into life and starting work without enough information about how the judiciary works. Thus, most information about the judiciary is obtained from the media writing or speaking about the cases before the courts.

This is why myself and other judges are going into schools to speak with students and explain to them how the judiciary works. What is the judiciary? What is the role of the judges? What are they doing? We visit different levels of schools, not just universities and law schools, but also elementary schools and high schools. We are going everywhere.

Then we invite many schools to come visit our Supreme Court. And on these occasions, we speak with the students, explain to them what we are doing, what our role is, and what it is like working in the judiciary. We try to make their education a bit broader to give them more information about the judiciary.

And of course, many of my colleagues and myself, give university lectures. Many of my colleagues are part-time professors in the universities. Of course, their job in the judiciary comes first, but they are also teaching in the universities. Mostly in law schools, but in other universities, too.

Ultimately, we are trying so much to give more information to the students and to the people.

Collins: Do you televise any of your court proceedings? Are there television cameras in the court?

JUDr. Angyalossy: No, no, no. It is not possible to stream our hearings. It would be very exceptional if we streamed our hearings.

One danger of streaming our hearings on the Internet is that following the hearing, witnesses could see testimony on TV or on the internet and that could influence their testimony. Their testimony could be not 100 percent correct because they saw something from the proceeding. So that is the danger.

But that’s not the only reason. We also don’t have the possibility of making every hearing open to the whole public. Of course, our hearings are open to the public. They can come into our courtroom. Of course, it’s free, but not streamed on the internet to everyone because our courtrooms have limited capacity. And when the public are in the courtroom, we can ensure they are not witnesses who will testify in the future.

Collins: Right. What about public trust in the judiciary in the Czech Republic? How do the public feel about the judges?

JUDr. Angyalossy: I can be proud of the Czech judiciary. Of course nothing is perfect, but trust is high in comparison with other European states. It’s true that nowadays the public trust is a bit lower than it was a few years ago, but I will explain why.

Sixty-five percent of the public have strong trust in the judiciary — 65 percent. A few years ago, the trust in the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court was about 80 percent. So considerably higher.

And why? I mean it is again my opinion. . . unfortunately many of our politicians, if they don’t like a decision of our courts because it is not politically good for them, they tell the public, through the media, that they don’t agree with the decision, saying, “It is a wrong decision of the court.” And so, they put this declaration of not trusting the judiciary into the public domain. They say, “if the politicians have no trust in the judiciary, why should the worker somewhere in a factory place trust in the judiciary?”

And, unfortunately, in the last few months, our Minister of Justice told the media that he does not agree with a decision of the Constitutional Court. He’s an attorney originally, but for many years he’s been a full-time politician. He told the media that he does not trust a decision of the Constitutional Court because according to his opinion, the decision was unconstitutional. It was in relation to freezing the salaries of the judges.

And the second reason why public trust in judges is lower is because in the last 20 years, politicians have unconstitutionally frozen, changed, or lowered the salaries of judges maybe 15 times. Because it was our decision which found that it was unconstitutional to amend the law, politicians complained to the Constitutional Court, and the Constitutional Court said, “Yes, it is unconstitutional.” And the politicians propose the law again and again. And this competition, it could be said, between the politicians and the judiciary is a reason why the people may have slightly less trust in the judiciary than earlier years.

Collins: President Angyalossy, who did you look to for inspiration in your judicial career? Who inspired you?

JUDr. Angyalossy: Inspiration? I have one person who was my example.

To be a judge was my childhood dream. When I was a young guy, if two people argued, I came to them and I tried to find a solution: how to make it okay, or how to deal with a day-to-day problem. It could be said that being a judge was within my heart from childhood.

My example as a judge was Dr. Otakar Motejl. He was our first President of the Supreme Court in the independent Czech Republic. Then he was briefly the Minister of Justice and then he was appointed as our ombudsman.

To me, he was a very, very clever and good lawyer. He had problems with the communists at that time too because he was an attorney and was against their regime. For this, he was badly persecuted. So that’s why he was unable to do anything until the Velvet Revolution. After the Velvet Revolution, he became our first President of the Supreme Court. He’s my main example.

This statue that I have on my shelf is a small butterfly in a hand. Motejl’s name translates to butterfly.

It was made in his name and symbolizes him as a butterfly in a hand.

Collins: Oh, that’s wonderful. That is beautiful. My final question, President, is this, you are four and a half years through your 10-year term. When your term comes to an end, what would you like your legacy to be? How would you like people to remember your term as President?

JUDr. Angyalossy: Yes, of course, everyone would like to leave a legacy. My goal is to leave behind a judiciary that is not only stable but trusted by a great portion of the public. Not only the now 65 percent, but much, much higher. I hope that our judicial system will be well-supported and recognized by the state as essential to maintaining a fair society. I hope that the judiciary will be better financed by the government because unfortunately we don’t have our own budget. We have to ask the Ministry of Justice for funding, and this is always a problem because the politicians won’t give us enough money for everything we need.

In comparison to other countries in the European Union, the Czech Republic and the Czech judiciary is one of the most efficient judiciaries, but it is also one of the least funded. We make a lot of music for very little money.

I want my legacy to be that the judiciary will be stronger. We are qualitatively a very good judiciary because when cases are referred to the European Court of Human Rights, the violation of the European Convention of Human Rights is found in a very low percentage of them. So, qualitatively, our decisions are very good, and we have a very good name in the European Union.

So, I will try to ensure that it’ll be much better than now, and I hope that the judiciary will be in a better condition and that the politicians will do something for us, not do things against us. I hope it will be a success. I have a few years [left] for that.

Collins: Yes. Well, President, I wish you very, very well. It has been an absolute pleasure to talk to you.

JUDr. Angyalossy: Thank you.

---

1. “JUDr.” (pronounced yoo-der) is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase Juris Utriusque Doctor and is the preferred legal honorific in the Czech Republic.