Dissatisfaction with a court's decision does not mean the judge is biased

The Supreme Administrative Court recently addressed a case that fundamentally underscores a core principle of the Czech judiciary: disagreement with a court's decision does not, in itself, provide grounds to question a judge's impartiality. Lawyer Mgr. Václav Voříšek filed an objection of bias against two judges of the Municipal Court in Prague, who were ruling on his request for exemption from court fees. However, the Supreme Administrative Court unequivocally rejected his arguments.

The entire case began when the lawyer filed a lawsuit challenging a decision by the Appellate Panel of the Disciplinary Appeals Committee of the Czech Bar Association concerning a disciplinary offense. During these proceedings, he requested an exemption from court fees and the appointment of legal representation. However, the Municipal Court denied both requests, stating that the plaintiff had failed to fully and credibly substantiate his financial circumstances. The court had requested bank statements, tax returns, and other documents to prove his financial situation.

The lawyer fundamentally disagreed with this approach, deeming the court's demands unusual and deliberately prejudicial to his case. He also objected to the court examining how his exemption requests had been handled in other proceedings. Moreover, when the court failed to immediately respond to his renewed request for fee exemption or his request for an extension to pay them, he concluded that the judges must be biased. Consequently, he had to ask his mother to pay the fee, which she ultimately did.

What the Law Says About Judicial Bias

In its ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court referenced the key provision of Section 8, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Procedure Code. This states that judges are excluded from hearing a case if there is reason to doubt their impartiality due to their relationship to the case, the parties, or their representatives. However, the law explicitly stipulates that circumstances arising from a judge's conduct in the proceedings of the case at hand do not constitute grounds for their exclusion or from their decisions in other matters.

This rule holds profound significance. If every procedural dissatisfaction of a party could lead to a judge's exclusion, the objection of bias would become a tool for delaying proceedings and circumventing unfavorable decisions. The right to a lawful judge, enshrined in Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, would thus paradoxically undermine itself.

The court emphasized that the exclusion of a judge constitutes an exception to the constitutional principle, which states that no one may be deprived of their lawful judge. The process of removing a case from the assigned judge and reassigning it to another must be understood as exceptional. A judge can only be excluded for truly serious reasons that genuinely prevent them from ruling impartially and fairly.

Practical Implications for Litigants

The Supreme Administrative Court's decision yields several important conclusions for anyone involved in litigation. Firstly, the rejection of a procedural request – whether for fee exemption, postponement of a hearing, or an extension of a deadline – does not, in itself, establish grounds for an objection of bias. Even if such a decision were not substantively correct, it must be challenged through appeals, not by questioning the judge's impartiality.

Secondly, in proceedings concerning bias, the court does not review the substantive correctness of the procedural conduct of the judges involved. If a party believes the court erred, they must utilize standard remedies – such as a cassation complaint, appeal, or other procedural instruments depending on the nature of the proceedings.

Thirdly, there are situations where the judge's conduct can be relevant – for example, their demeanor during oral proceedings or overall communication with the parties. These circumstances can lead to legitimate doubts about impartiality. However, in this particular case, the Supreme Administrative Court found no such issues. The Municipal Court proceeded in a standardized manner, requested the plaintiff to submit the necessary documents, and after the fee was paid, logically inquired whether the plaintiff still wished to pursue their request.

This case serves as an important reminder that dissatisfaction with the outcome is not the same as an unfair process. For entrepreneurs and companies regularly involved in court proceedings, it is crucial to distinguish between legitimate criticism of court procedures through appeals and unsubstantiated objections of bias, which merely delay proceedings and ultimately harm primarily those who raise them.

Source: Supreme Administrative Court, Nao 41/2026-11