Evidence boundary
The Czech official records and linked Czech PDFs remain the controlling sources. This page translates the project’s factual descriptions; it does not replace the originals or provide legal advice.
A transfer, referral, acknowledgement, review or opening of a proceeding is reported as a procedural act. It is not presented as proof of wrongdoing or as a prediction of the final outcome.
For subsequent filings, To identifies the receiving authority, while For identifies a separately documented authority expected to decide or substantively handle the filing. “For” is omitted when no distinct authority is documented.
Active court proceedings since 1 May 2026
Start: 29 July 2025
Prague Municipal Court, case 45 T 1/2024 – returned by the Prague High Court
Start: 1 May 2026
Prague Municipal Court, case 18 A 17/2026 – National Centre against Organised Crime
Start: 31 May 2026
Prague Municipal Court, case 8 Ad 9/2026 – Ministry of Health
Start: 4 June 2026
Prague 4 District Court, case 10 C 69/2026 – Czech Television
Start: 15 June 2026
Prague Municipal Court, case 18 A 23/2026 – Ministry of Justice
Start: 12 July 2026
Prostějov District Court, case 2 T 104/2010 – reopening
Start: 12 July 2026
Prostějov District Court – preventive filing 2026
Start: 22 July 2026
Ostrava District Court, case 15 T 11/2025
Start: 23 July 2026
Prague Municipal Court, case 15 A 44/2026 – Ministry of the Interior
Godot online – decisions of state and public institutions since 1 May 2026. Will the State's time for love come?read as an investigation with loveExpand ↓
148 responses of state love since 1 May 2026 · newest on top · the oldest response is No. 1. Will Godot finally arrive?
| No. | Date | Authority | Ref./case no. | What happened | What the authority responded to | Objection / remedy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 148 | Office for Personal Data Protection | UOOU-06760/26-4 | In order UOOU-06760/26-4 of 20 October 2026, the Office for Personal Data Protection expressly confirmed that the statutory time limit for the Minister of the Interior to decide the 12 August administrative appeal (Ganja For All Animals, z.s.) had expired without a decision. It nonetheless declined to order action against inactivity because the Minister issued decision MV-134798-4/SO-2026 on 7 October, ending that inactivity. No administrative appeal lies against this order. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 147 | Moravian-Silesian Regional Police Directorate | KRPT-276756-2/ČJ-2026-0700KR | On 20 October 2026 the Moravian-Silesian Regional Police Directorate, ref. KRPT-276756-2/ČJ-2026-0700KR, informed the Educational Cannabis Clinic that it had received its information request on 15 October. It extended the deadline for providing information until 9 November 2026, citing consultations among police departments including the Olomouc Regional Police Directorate. This is an extended deadline, not a substantive response. · PDF document | — | ||
| 146 | European Union Drugs Agency | EXO/FHP/pd (26) D 110 | EUDA responds to the fundamental objection: it recognises methodological limitations and uneven comparability of national THC potency data, clarifies that publishing national statistics does not validate forensic laboratories' analytical methods, declines to regard Regulation (EU) 2023/1322 as requiring an individually requested comparative study, and maintains its legal position of 25 September 2026. · PDF document | — | ||
| 145 | Office for Personal Data Protection | UOOU-05841/26-7; UOOU-05793/26; UOOU-05032/26 | On 19 October 2026 the Office for Personal Data Protection confirmed that the appeal against the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office decision SIN 55/2026-19 is registered as UOOU-05841/26, was forwarded on 17 August, and is awaiting approval of a prepared decision. It expressly acknowledged exceeding the legal time limit. It separately confirmed that the complaint concerning the President's Office, UOOU-05793/26, was forwarded on 14 August and that its time limit too was exceeded. The Czech Television matter is registered separately under UOOU-05032/26; a further reply was promised. No final decision was issued by this letter. · PDF document | — | ||
| 144 | European Union Drugs Agency | Comparability of THC data - Access to documents request; bez samostatného č. j. v e-mailu | On 15 October 2026 at 11:25, EUDA asked the requester to confirm receipt of its 1 October email and stated that it expected to send the requested documents by the following day, before the applicable regulatory deadline. The message belongs to the separate access-to-documents procedure under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 concerning the comparability and methodological traceability of THC data. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 143 | Prostějov District Court | 15 Nt 3106/2026-235 | On 15 October 2026 the Prostějov District Court, ref. 15 Nt 3106/2026-235, requested supporting financial documentation for the 1 October publicly funded defence application in renewal proceedings 2 T 65/2011. The 14-day response period runs from service, for which no verified date is available. This procedural request is not a rejection of the defence application. · PDF document | — | ||
| 142 | Prostějov District Court | 15 Nt 3104/2026-238 | On 15 October 2026 the Prostějov District Court, ref. 15 Nt 3104/2026-238, requested additional evidence of income, bank accounts, property, debts and household circumstances to consider the 1 October application for publicly funded defence in renewal proceedings 2 T 104/2010. The requested documents are due within 14 days of the notice being served. No service date is established and the court did not yet decide eligibility. · PDF document | — | ||
| 141 | Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office | SIN 72/2026-16 | On 15 October 2026 the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office, reference SIN 72/2026-16, asked the applicant to identify precisely which recorded information or documents he seeks specifically from that office under the Freedom of Information Act. It regarded the collective 14-page request involving five bodies and a criminal report as unclear. It stated that failure to clarify within 30 days of service of its notice would result in refusal of the request; the service date is not evidenced. · PDF document | — | ||
| 140 | Czech Bar Association | 10.32-000925/26-0002 | On 15 October 2026, responding to the 10 October request, the Czech Bar Association's Brno branch provided instructions and a web link for formally seeking appointment of a lawyer for free legal assistance under the Advocates Act, including submission channels. This communication is not a decision granting or denying legal assistance. · PDF document | — | ||
| 139 | Prostějov District Court | St 7/2026; 15 Nt 3105/2026; 9 To 316/2026-219 | In its letter dated 13 October 2026, reference St 7/2026, the Prostějov District Court dismissed as unfounded the complaint about delays in case 15 Nt 3105/2026. The court stated that the file returned from Brno Regional Court on 29 September and order 9 To 316/2026-219 was sent to the data box on 6 October and delivered on 7 October. The letter referred to the possibility of a motion to set a procedural time limit under Section 174a of Act No. 6/2002. The original higher-court order itself is not included here. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 138 | Olomouc High Public Prosecutor’s Office | 3 VZN 266/2026-8 | In notice 3 VZN 266/2026-8 of 12 October 2026, the Olomouc High Public Prosecutor's Office returned specified parts of the 6 October submission to the Brno Regional Public Prosecutor's Office for examination under 1 KZN 1090/2026, concerning Prostějov file ZN 4/2026. Brno was asked to assess new facts or potentially repetitive submissions. This forwarding did not itself amount to a new comprehensive merits review. · PDF document | — | ||
| 137 | Olomouc High Public Prosecutor’s Office | 3 VZN 265/2026-7 | In notice 3 VZN 265/2026-7 of 12 October 2026, the Olomouc High Public Prosecutor's Office sent specified parts of the 6 October submission and attachments back to the Ostrava Regional Public Prosecutor's Office in its file 4 KZN 3239/2026, concerning oversight of Frýdek-Místek proceedings 1 ZN 7061/2026. Ostrava is to assess any new facts or possible repetition; dismissal without further notification was flagged. This was a referral, not a new merits review of all objections. · PDF document | — | ||
| 136 | Prague Municipal Court | 18 A 23/2026-209 | On 12 October 2026, Prague Municipal Court rejected both the intervention and alternative inactivity actions against the Ministry of Justice, reference 18 A 23/2026-209. The court cited grounds including jurisdiction, timeliness, standing where submissions had been made by separate legal entities, and abuse of procedural rights. It ordered a refund of the CZK 2,000 court fee. A cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court is being prepared; no filing has yet been evidenced. · PDF document | — | ||
| 135 | Prague Municipal Court | 18 A 17/2026-215 | On 12 October 2026, Prague Municipal Court rejected the intervention action against the National Centre against Organised Crime and Police Presidium, reference 18 A 17/2026-215. The court relied, among other grounds, on the limits of administrative court jurisdiction over criminal investigations, lack of standing regarding submissions by separate legal persons, and abuse of procedural rights. It ordered the return of the CZK 2,000 court fee. A cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court is being prepared but has not been filed according to the available record. · PDF document | — | ||
| 134 | European Ombudsman | 202602199 | On 7 October 2026 the European Ombudsman confirmed receipt and registration of the complaint under reference 202602199. The office said it would contact the complainant again to state whether the complaint can be dealt with and, if so, what the next steps will be, usually within the following four weeks. It also stated that filing the complaint does not affect statutory time limits in related administrative or judicial proceedings. · PDF document | — | ||
| 133 | Police Presidium of the Czech Republic | PPR-52605-2/ČJ-2026-990210-PD | On 7 October 2026, under ref. PPR-52605-2/ČJ-2026-990210-PD, the Internal Control Office of the Police Presidium stated that the filing identified in the heading as dated 6 October 2026 would be placed on file without further measures insofar as it relied on the Prostějov District Public Prosecutor’s notice; the office said it was not competent to assess the procedure of an authority acting in criminal proceedings and could not presume the subsequent procedure of the police unit. The body of the notice contains “6 October 2024”, which conflicts with the heading’s “6 October 2026”; the public record preserves this source discrepancy rather than silently correcting it. · PDF document | — | ||
| 132 | Ministry of the Interior | MV-134798-4/SO-2026 | On 7 October 2026, under ref. MV-134798-4/SO-2026, the Minister of the Interior upheld the administrative appeal by Ganja For All Animals, z.s., annulled the Ministry’s decision of 11 August 2026, ref. MV-127234-2/OBP-2026, and remitted the matter for new consideration. The Minister agreed that the refusal was unreviewable because it did not explain how the requested information had been searched for, which units or records had been checked, or whether some information could be obtained by simple operations. In the new proceedings the Ministry must reassess the request and either provide the information in whole or in part, or issue a reviewable refusal. · PDF document | — | ||
| 131 | Prague Municipal Court | 15 Ad 14/2026-17 | On 7 October 2026, under ref. 15 Ad 14/2026-17, the Prague Municipal Court stated that case 15 Ad 14/2026 had been assigned under the work schedule to specialised panel 15 Ad and set out the procedure for raising an objection of bias under Section 8(5) of the Code of Administrative Justice. The service date is not established by the uploaded document. · PDF document | — | ||
| 130 | Prague Municipal Court | 15 Ad 14/2026-13 | On 6 October 2026, under ref. 15 Ad 14/2026-13, the Prague Municipal Court rejected the intervention action against the State Institute for Drug Control. It held that the alleged conduct could not, by its nature, constitute an intervention under Section 82 of the Code of Administrative Justice. The order permits a cassation complaint within two weeks of service; the service date is not established by the uploaded document. · PDF document | — | ||
| 129 | Prague Municipal Court | 18 A 17/2026-191 | The Prague Municipal Court stated that it would preserve the ten-day period for the claimant to respond to the defendant NCOZ statement, counted from the date that statement was served, and that it was prepared to decide after that period expired. · PDF document | |||
| 128 | European Union Drugs Agency | no separate reference number in the email | EUDA acknowledged that it had received and registered a separate access-to-documents request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, stated that processing had already begun as a procedure distinct from the call to act, including identifying requested documents that may be held by relevant EUDA services, and said it would respond within the time limits laid down in the applicable legislation. · PDF document | — | ||
| 127 | Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | 3 KZN 974/2026-114 | The Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office reviewed the handling by the Prague 2 District Public Prosecutor’s Office in case 1 ZN 157/2026 and dismissed Dušan Dvořák’s supervisory request of 1 August 2026 as unfounded. It concluded that the transferred part of the 27 May 2026 filing concerning the Ministry of Justice did not contain sufficiently concrete facts reasonably indicating an offence under Sections 329, 330 or another provision of the Criminal Code. The Office treated notice 3 KZN 974/2026-114 of 1 October 2026 as the final disposition of the matter and stated that further submissions with the same content would not be reviewed. · PDF document | |||
| 126 | Brno Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office | 1 SPR 338/2026-5 | The Brno Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office disposed of Dušan Dvořák’s complaint about delays. It stated that the review in case 1 KZT 475/2026 had been completed on 16 September 2026 and the notice dispatched on 18 September, but due to an administrative error it was not delivered to his data box until 29 September 2026; the Office apologised. In case 1 KZN 1079/2026 it stated that the review period had been extended to 9 October 2026 and expected written notification within that extended period. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 125 | Brno Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office | 1 KZN 1079/2026-41 | On 1 October 2026, under ref. 1 KZN 1079/2026-41, the Brno Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed as unfounded the request for supervisory review of the Brno Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office handling of case 3 ZN 140/2026. It nevertheless acknowledged a procedural error in directly returning the relevant part of the filing to the Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office, while treating that error as immaterial to the substantive disposition; it considered that Prague itself should have dealt with that part under Section 16a(4), second sentence. · PDF document | |||
| 124 | Prague Municipal Court | 18 A 17/2026-186 | On 30 September 2026, the Prague Municipal Court, ref. 18 A 17/2026-186, sent Dušan Dvořák the defendant NCOZ statement dated 20 May 2026 for information and stated that the defendant had also submitted the administrative file. The NCOZ statement is retained as a separate canonical attachment but is displayed on the same public chronology row as this court letter because this was the act by which it was transmitted to the claimant. · PDF document | — | ||
| 123 | Office of the President of the Republic | KPR 5080/2026 | The Office of the President acknowledged two further submissions received on 22 September 2026. It stated that neither the President nor any representative of the Office would attend the public hearings on the reopening applications at Prostějov District Court on 12 and 13 October 2026. Referring to its letter of 2 September 2026, it said that the President would reconsider the repeated pardon request only after a longer interval and, above all, if new material facts relevant to revising his previous refusals emerged. No date for reconsideration could be specified in advance; the applicant would be notified promptly when a decision was made. The letter itself does not grant a pardon or announce a new decision on its merits. · PDF document | — | ||
| 122 | European Ombudsman | e-mail 28/09/2026 | On 28 September 2026, the European Ombudsman’s Secretariat stated that the email sent on 27 September would not be processed as a complaint unless the official complaint form was used. It also said that prior correspondence with the relevant EU body should be attached. The message did not substantively reject the concerns raised about EUDA. · Evidence page | |||
| 121 | European Union Drugs Agency | EXO/FHP/pd (26) D 106 | EUDA responded substantively to the formal call to act under Article 265 TFEU. The Agency stated that, in its view, Articles 6(1)(f) and 15 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1322 do not impose a specific, unconditional and legally binding obligation to carry out the requested comparative assessment or harmonisation work. At the same time, EUDA acknowledged that differences in analytical methods, the treatment of THC and THCA, sample preparation and storage, and approaches to measurement uncertainty may affect analytical outcomes and comparability. It also stated that it does not maintain a systematic inventory of national THC determination methodologies, has not carried out a systematic comparative assessment of those methodologies, and has not decided to conduct or commission such work. · PDF document | — | ||
| 120 | Prague Municipal Court | 18 A 23/2026-182 | On 23 September 2026, under ref. 18 A 23/2026-182, the Prague Municipal Court sent the claimant, for information, the defendant Ministry of Justice's statement concerning the action, dated 27 August 2026. The Court set a one-week period from service of the covering letter for any reply. It also stated that it treats the case as a priority matter, but not as an extraordinarily urgent one. The uploaded PDF contains the Court's covering letter only, not the defendant's attached statement. Because the date of service is not evidenced in the document, no specific calendar deadline is inferred. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 119 | Prague Municipal Court | 18 A 17/2026-182 | On 23 September 2026, under ref. 18 A 17/2026-182, the Prague Municipal Court stated that it had received the claimant's motion to set a time limit for a procedural act. Independently of the motion dated 21 September 2026, the Court said it had planned and still planned to decide case 18 A 17/2026 in the coming weeks, within the thirty-day framework referred to in Section 174a(3) of Act No. 6/2002. It therefore was not at that point forwarding the case file to the Supreme Administrative Court. No specific calendar decision date is inferred from the document. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 118 | Supreme Administrative Court | 6 As 207/2026-26 | Information on cassation proceedings 6 As 207/2026. · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 117 | Prague Municipal Court | 15 Ad 14/2026-12 | On 22 September 2026, under ref. 15 Ad 14/2026-12, the Prague Municipal Court stated that the court fee paid in proceeding 8 Ad 9/2026 cannot be transferred to the separate fee obligation in proceeding 15 Ad 14/2026. The Court also stated that an instruction to refund the fee paid in 8 Ad 9/2026 had already been issued. The communication does not terminate proceeding 15 Ad 14/2026 and sets no new deadline. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 116 | Prague 4 District Court | 10 C 69/2026 | On 16 September 2026, in case 10 C 69/2026 (Mgr. Dušan Dvořák v Czech Television, protection of personality), the Prague 4 District Court summoned the claimant to the first hearing, scheduled for 24 November 2026 at 13:00 in courtroom 3.308. The document fixes a concrete hearing date; it does not decide the merits of the case. The previous elapsed-time timer for waiting on the next procedural step is therefore removed, while the court case itself remains active. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 115 | Brno Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office | 1 KZT 475/2026-71 | The Brno Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the request for supervision of the Prostějov District Public Prosecutor’s Office as unfounded. It stated that a prosecutor need not provide an opinion on reopening before the public hearing and that legal advice on cannabis cultivation falls outside the prosecution service’s remit. It nevertheless accepted that future submissions cannot be rejected indiscriminately, limiting that approach to repeated submissions containing no new facts. The notice addresses the filing of 10 July 2026 and supplements through 13 September 2026. · PDF document | |||
| 114 | Olomouc High Public Prosecutor’s Office | 3 VZN 239/2026-64 | On 15 September 2026 the Olomouc High Public Prosecutor’s Office explained how it handled submissions dated 15 and 24 August and 2, 3 and 13 September. It noted or had forwarded several filings and stated that supervision over district public prosecutor’s offices belongs to the directly superior regional offices; the 13 September filing was therefore noted without further measure at the High Office. · Evidence page | — | ||
| 113 | Prague High Court | 3 Cmo 24/2026-26 | The Prague High Court quashed the Prague Municipal Court’s order of 4 March 2026, reference 3 Cm 2/2026-19, refusing the Educational Cannabis Clinic’s applications for court-fee exemption and appointed counsel. It held that district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim for a reply against FTV Prima and ordered transfer to Prague 10 District Court once the order becomes final. It classified the claim as a statutory right of reply under broadcasting legislation. The order did not decide whether FTV Prima must publish the reply. · PDF document | — | ||
| 112 | Prostějov District Court | 15 Nt 3106/2026 | On 14 September 2026, under ref. 15 Nt 3106/2026, the Prostějov District Court informed Dušan Dvořák that this file will be used to hear the application to reopen proceedings previously conducted under file 2 T 65/2011. The Court also stated that, in the original case, the public prosecutor withdrew the indictment and the criminal proceedings were subsequently discontinued. The letter is a procedural clarification; it does not itself grant reopening, decide the merits, create a new remedy or start a separate new timer. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 111 | Prostějov District Court | 15 Nt 3104/2026 | On 14 September 2026, under ref. 15 Nt 3104/2026, the Prostějov District Court informed Dušan Dvořák that this file will be used to hear his application to reopen the proceedings previously conducted under file 2 T 104/2010. The letter is a procedural clarification identifying the reopening case; it does not itself grant reopening, decide the merits, create a new remedy or start a separate new timer. · PDF document | — | ||
| 110 | Ministry of the Interior | MV-139593-3/TP-2026 | On 14 September 2026 the Ministry of the Interior dismissed the appeal dated 24 August 2026 and confirmed the Moravian-Silesian Regional Police decision of 20 August 2026, ref. KRPT-203594-8/ČJ-2026-0700KR, concerning partial refusal of an information request. The decision states that no further administrative appeal is available. · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 109 | Prague Municipal Court | 9 Ad 12/2026-7 | On 14 September 2026 the Prague Municipal Court rejected the second identical intervention action in case 9 Ad 12/2026 because an earlier identical action filed on 31 August 2026 remains pending as 15 Ad 14/2026. The rejection of 9 Ad 12/2026 therefore does not terminate the earlier 15 Ad 14/2026 proceeding. The order allows a cassation complaint within two weeks of service; the service date is not recorded here. · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 108 | Prague Municipal Court | 8 Ad 9/2026-89 | On 9 September 2026, under ref. 8 Ad 9/2026-89, the Prague Municipal Court asked the claimant to provide a bank account number so that the court fee could be refunded pursuant to operative part III of the order of 28 August 2026, ref. 8 Ad 9/2026-85. The letter is an administrative follow-up implementing the already ordered refund; it does not itself decide the merits of the intervention action or record a new remedy. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 107 | Ministry of Justice | MSP-19/2026-ODKA-ROZ/27 | The Minister of Justice treated the submissions delivered on 12 July, 15 July, 10 August and 25 August 2026 as a request for measures against inactivity under Section 80(2) of the Administrative Procedure Code. He found the request unfounded, declined to take an inactivity measure and stated that the filing of 12 July 2026 was disposed of by this letter. He also stated that a settlement cannot be concluded in the administrative action and that further filings without new material facts may be placed on file without further written notice. · PDF document | — | ||
| 106 | General Inspection of Security Forces | GI-3794-4/ČJ-2026-840502-P | The General Inspection of Security Forces stated on 8 September 2026, under ref. GI-3794-4/ČJ-2026-840502-P, that the filings delivered on 15 and 24 August 2026 concerning review of 2009-2019 proceedings and internal review of police procedures for determining THC in cannabis had been forwarded, according to subject-matter and territorial competence, to the Police Presidium of the Czech Republic for further measures. The Inspection also stated that it lacked authority to assess the challenged Police procedures or the factual and legal questions concerning evidence, and expressly treated the matter as disposed of on its side. · PDF document | — | ||
| 105 | Supreme Administrative Court | 6 As 207/2026-13; navazuje na 15 A 44/2026-43 | The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed receipt on 2 September 2026 of the cassation complaint against Prague Municipal Court order 15 A 44/2026-43 and requested a completed statement of personal, property and income circumstances within one week of service so it can decide the requests for exemption from court fees and appointment of counsel · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 104 | Frýdek-Místek District Public Prosecutor’s Office | 1 ZN 7061/2026-79 | The Frýdek-Místek District Public Prosecutor’s Office closed the filings without further action and advised that the handling may be reviewed by the Ostrava Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office under Section 16a(7) · PDF document | — | ||
| 103 | Brno Regional Court | 9 To 315/2026-140 | The Brno Regional Court dismissed the complaint in case 9 To 315/2026 under Section 148(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code as lodged by a person not entitled to bring it, without a substantive review of the asserted new evidence. · PDF document | — | ||
| 102 | Office of the President of the Republic | KPR 5080/2026 | The Head of the Office of the President dealt with the complaint concerning the Office’s procedure and stated that later submissions recorded under KPR 5080/2026 had not yet been decided · PDF document | — | ||
| 101 | Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting | RRTV/8853/2026-bur; sp. zn. RRTV/2026/560/kar | On 1 September 2026, the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting, under ref. RRTV/8853/2026-bur and case file RRTV/2026/560/kar, shelved the filing concerning Czech Television’s reporting on cannabis without opening misdemeanor proceedings. The Council found that the filing referred to an unspecified part of Czech Television’s programming and contained no facts actionable within its supervisory competence. Its notice states that no court action may be filed against the decision under Section 66 of Act No. 231/2001. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 100 | Ministry of Health | MZDR 21970/2026-3/MIN/KAN | The Czech Ministry of Health answered ten freedom-of-information questions submitted by Ganja For All Animals, z.s. about the collection, storage and transport of blood samples, blood and blood components. It cited the applicable legislation, the ČSN EN ISO 15189:2023 standard and professional guidance, and described storage temperatures, validation of transport boxes and vehicles, and transport monitoring. At the same time, the Ministry stated that it held neither the requested record and protocol templates nor inspection findings, methodological positions or records of temperature or time deviations since 1 January 2021, and refused those parts of the request. It identified the State Institute for Drug Control as the supervisory authority for blood banks, blood establishments and healthcare providers. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 99 | Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | 3 KZN 974/2026-108 | The Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office re-examined the relevant part of Dušan Dvořák's filing of 27 May 2026 and follow-up filings of 14, 15 and 19 July 2026 after the Brno Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office returned the transferred part under reference 3 ZN 140/2026-3. The Prague office concluded that the filings, insofar as they concerned persons serving or formerly serving at the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office, did not contain concrete facts reasonably indicating an offence under Sections 329, 330 or another provision of the Criminal Code. It therefore filed the submissions without further action under Section 16a of the Public Prosecutor's Office Act and treated them as disposed of. The notice expressly states that the manner of disposal may be submitted for review under Section 16a(7) to the Prague High Public Prosecutor's Office. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 98 | Ministry of Culture | MK 53559/2026 SOCNS | The Czech Ministry of Culture answered questions raised in submissions of 26 June and 7 July 2026 and later supplements concerning the procedural status and registration of the Cannabis Church. It confirmed that the original registration proceeding had been finally concluded by the 2019 refusal, that the preparatory committee and its representative were and remain recorded as parties, and referred to the parallel order MK 53547/2026 SOCNS. The Ministry stated that it lacked competence to assess THC/THCA forensic methodology, the European Commission position or Danish materials, and treated the EU-law and preliminary-reference issues as irrelevant to the registration proceeding. It also stated that it had assessed the submissions according to their substance, good-administration principles, religious neutrality and protection of religious pluralism, and offered a possible personal meeting on further merits-related questions. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 97 | Ministry of Culture | MK 53547/2026 SOCNS | The Czech Ministry of Culture discontinued the proceeding on the preparatory committee’s request for a new proceeding and a new decision concerning registration of the Cannabis Church under Section 101(b) of the Administrative Procedure Code. It accepted that the original registration request had been finally refused, but concluded that the new legal, factual, evidentiary and doctrinal circumstances did not justify a favourable new decision. The Ministry treated changes in cannabis law, THC/THCA forensic issues, EU-law arguments and the legal regime of cannabis religious objects as irrelevant to registration, regarded the more detailed explanation of the Church’s teaching as not constituting a new fact, and again concluded that the Cannabis Church did not satisfy the statutory definition of a church and religious society. A remonstrance may be filed within 15 days of service; it has no suspensive effect. · PDF document | — | ||
| 96 | Prague Municipal Court | 8 Ad 9/2026-85 | The Prague Municipal Court rejected the intervention action against the Ministry of Health under Section 46(1)(a) of the Code of Administrative Justice, finding that the challenged classification of medicinal cannabis as a ‘highly addictive substance’ was not an individualised intervention against the claimant but part of the general statutory and regulatory framework. No party was awarded costs. After the order becomes final, the claimant is to receive a refund of the full CZK 2,000 court fee because the action was rejected before the first hearing; the Court requested bank details within 10 days. A cassation complaint may be filed within two weeks of service. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 95 | Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | 3 KZN 974/2026-103 | The Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office completed supervisory review of the Prague 7 District Public Prosecutor’s Office in file ZN 87/2026. The review concerned the part of the submission relating to officials of the Ministry of the Interior. The Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office concluded that the materials did not sufficiently particularise facts indicating an offence under Sections 329 or 330 of the Criminal Code or another criminal offence, dismissed the supervisory submission as unfounded and stated that the matter was finally disposed of at that level. It also advised that further submissions of identical content would no longer be reviewed or acknowledged. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 94 | Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | 3 KZN 974/2026-100 | The Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office completed supervisory review of the Prague 4 District Public Prosecutor’s Office in file 1 ZN 320/2026. It found no error requiring corrective action, dismissed the supervisory submission as unfounded and stated that the matter was finally disposed of at that level. It also advised that further submissions of identical content would no longer be reviewed or acknowledged. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 93 | Ministry of Justice | MSP-19/2026-ODKA-ROZ/26 | On 27 August 2026, under ref. MSP-19/2026-ODKA-ROZ/26 in case 18 A 23/2026, the Ministry of Justice submitted its statement on the intervention action and related case material. The Ministry argues that the claimant lacks standing and that no intervention within the meaning of Section 82 of the Code of Administrative Justice occurred; it proposes dismissal of the action as inadmissible and, alternatively, rejection on the merits. This is the defendant authority's litigation position, not a court determination of the merits. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 92 | Office for Personal Data Protection | UOOU-05841/26-3 | The Czech Office for Personal Data Protection stated that the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office sent the appeal and the case file on 12 August 2026, but they were not received by the Office until 17 August 2026. According to the Office, the fifteen-day period under Section 16(3) of the Freedom of Information Act therefore runs from that delivery and expires on 1 September 2026. The Office also stated that no procedural act had yet been taken in the appeal proceedings and that the separate submission of 14 July 2026, supplemented on 12 August 2026, would be handled by the competent department in a separate letter. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 91 | National Institute of Public Health | SZU/10724/2026 | The National Institute of Public Health issued a decision partially refusing the information request under Section 11b of the Czech Freedom of Information Act. It refused information concerning methodologies, temperature ranges, transport without a validated box, high-temperature transport conditions, temperature monitoring and generally applicable validation requirements, stating that these matters fall within the competence of the healthcare providers sending samples. The decision may be appealed within 15 days to the Czech Office for Personal Data Protection through the Institute. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 90 | Ostrava Regional Court | St 82/2026; souvisí s 15 T 11/2025 | The Ostrava Regional Court confirmed that on 24 August 2026 it received a complaint concerning the conduct of proceedings before the Ostrava District Court in case 15 T 11/2025. Because the chair of the Ostrava District Court is competent to deal with the complaint, the Regional Court forwarded it to her on 26 August 2026. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 89 | National Institute of Public Health | SZU/10724/2026 | The National Institute of Public Health responded to the information request concerning transport, storage and handover of human blood samples. It stated that pre-analytical handling and transport are the responsibility of the healthcare provider sending the sample, referred to its laboratory sampling manual, and stated that since 1 January 2021 it has recorded no degradation, refusal or challenge of a blood sample because of transport conditions. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 88 | Prostějov District Court | 15 Nt 3106/2026 | Prostějov District Court summons to a public hearing on 13 October 2026. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 87 | Prostějov District Court | 15 Nt 3106/2026 | Prostějov District Court statement that cases 2 T 104/2010 and 2 T 65/2011 cannot be joined in one proceeding. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 86 | Prague Municipal Court | 15 A 44/2026-43 | Prague Municipal Court ruling rejecting the intervention action against the Interior Ministry in case 15 A 44/2026. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 85 | Police Presidium of the Czech Republic | PPR-44020-2/ČJ-2026-990210-PD | The Internal Control Office of the Police Presidium declined superior review under Section 97(3) of the Police Act on the ground that the preceding mandatory examination under Section 97 had not taken place at the Institute of Criminalistics, and placed the filing of 15 August 2026 on file without further action. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 84 | Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | 2 KZN 683/2026-31 | Prague Municipal Prosecutor response returning a submission for further handling. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 83 | Institute of Criminalistics of the Police of the Czech Republic | KU-4139-12/ČJ-2026-2305KM | The Institute of Criminalistics stated that it was unaware of any error in forensic work, that the quality of forensic work is monitored through methodological and expert visits, and that it was not obliged, at the applicant’s request, to review forensic procedures and methods used in expert work. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 82 | Moravian-Silesian Regional Police Directorate | Annex to KRPT-203594-7/ČJ-2026-0700KR; příloha č. 1 k RŘ KÚ č. 54/2021 | Annex to ref. KRPT-203594-7/ČJ-2026-0700KR: methodology for taking a representative sample of plant material, Annex 1 to Director’s Order No. 54/2021. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 81 | Moravian-Silesian Regional Police Directorate | Annex to KRPT-203594-7/ČJ-2026-0700KR; RŘ KÚ č. 54/2021; KU-8331-1/ČJ-2021-2305KM | Annex to ref. KRPT-203594-7/ČJ-2026-0700KR: Director of the Institute of Criminalistics Order No. 54/2021 on the examination of cannabis and cannabinoids. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 80 | Moravian-Silesian Regional Police Directorate | Annex to KRPT-203594-7/ČJ-2026-0700KR | Annex to ref. KRPT-203594-7/ČJ-2026-0700KR: list of files concerning methodological and expert visits, inter-laboratory tests and destruction records from 2009–2019. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 79 | Moravian-Silesian Regional Police Directorate | KRPT-203594-8/ČJ-2026-0700KR | Decision partially refusing the freedom-of-information request: the Police stated that in 2009–2019 the Frýdek-Místek forensic unit had no SOPs for determining THC, no written methodological instructions for homogenisation or determination of THC/THCA, no methodology for measurement uncertainty and no validation protocols; some control files had been destroyed after retention periods expired. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 78 | Moravian-Silesian Regional Police Directorate | KRPT-203594-7/ČJ-2026-0700KR | The Moravian-Silesian Regional Police Directorate partially answered the freedom-of-information request concerning SOPs and methodological documentation used by the Frýdek-Místek forensic unit in 2009–2019, providing a representative-sampling methodology and a list of methodological visits and destruction records. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 77 | Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | 2 KZN 55/2025-136 | The Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office dealt with filings dated 25 April, 10, 12 and 27 May, 2 and 4 June, and 15 and 19 July 2026; it found no reason to exercise the power under Section 157(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and placed the specified filings on file without further action. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 76 | Prague Municipal Court | 8 Ad 9/2026-80 | The Prague Municipal Court forwarded to the claimant, for information, the Ministry of Health’s statement of defence and its supplement in the intervention action. · Evidence page | — | ||
| 75 | Olomouc University Hospital | příloha poskytnutá dne 19. 8. 2026; STL2015_11 ze dne 2. 11. 2015 | Olomouc University Hospital provided, in response to the request concerning transport of blood, recommendation STL2015_11 on storage and transport of blood, blood components, starting material for further manufacture and blood products. · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 74 | Prostějov District Court | 15 Nt 3104/2026-56; souvisí s 2 T 104/2010 | The Prostějov District Court summoned Dušan Dvořák to a public hearing on the application to reopen proceedings on 12 October 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in courtroom 17 and stated that his attendance was required. It also stated that cases 2 T 104/2010 and 2 T 65/2011 could not be joined because they had ended at different procedural stages · PDF document | — | — | |
| 73 | Ministry of Transport | MD-46042/2026-010/4; sp. zn. MD/46042/2026/010 | The Ministry of Transport deferred the freedom-of-information request concerning the collection, transport and storage of blood samples. It stated that it holds no documents concerning those matters and has never held any, considered the requested information outside its remit, and referred the applicant to the Police of the Czech Republic, the Police Presidium, the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Health. · PDF document | — | — | |
| 72 | Prague High Public Prosecutor’s Office | SIN 233/2026-9 | The Prague High Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the appeal and upheld the Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office decision refusing information about the receipt, registration and transfer of filings. It described the contested decision as being at the very edge of reviewability, supplied an expanded rationale of its own and concluded that the request constituted an abuse of rights. The decision is dated 17 August 2026 and was received on 18 August 2026 · PDF document | — | — | |
| 71 | State Institute for Drug Control | sukl252539/2026; sp. zn. sukls242547/2026 | The State Institute for Drug Control referred questions 2–7 to the blood decree and the Good Practice Guidelines for Blood Establishments; it stated that it has no specialised inspection methodology and records no requested inspection findings or measures since 1 January 2021 · PDF document | — | — | |
| 70 | Police Presidium of the Czech Republic | PPR-42608-3/ČJ-2026-990810 | The Police Presidium provided information on the receipt, custody, transport and handover of venous blood samples; it stated that its internal instruments do not regulate the requested chain-of-custody details or a maximum transport time and that since 1 January 2021 it has issued no methodology on defects in sample transport or handover · PDF document | — | — | |
| 69 | Olomouc Region Public Health Authority | KHSOC/33066/2026/SPR; sp. zn. KHSOC/31529/2026 | The Olomouc Region Public Health Authority provided information on hygiene requirements for transporting biological material; it stated that it does not inspect the temperature regime because it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, has no specific methodology for the listed non-conformities and has conducted no such inspection since 1 January 2021 · PDF document | — | — | |
| 68 | Police Presidium of the Czech Republic | PPR-43826-2/ČJ-2026-990210-PD | The Police Presidium’s Internal Control Office declared that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint concerning inactivity by the Institute of Criminalistics and transferred it to the office of the Institute’s director · Evidence page | |||
| 67 | Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office | 6 NZN 1737/2026-73 | The Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office stated that the requests concerning the Ministry of Justice, the court proceedings and the settlement proposal fell outside its remit, and transferred the part seeking review of the Prostějov District Public Prosecutor’s Office to the Brno Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office. The record is dated 13 August 2026 and was received on 18 August 2026 · PDF document | — | — | |
| 66 | Ministry of Culture | MK 49467/2026 SOCNS | The Ministry of Culture formally confirmed that the proceeding for a new proceeding and decision under Section 101(b) of the Code of Administrative Procedure had commenced on 26 June 2026 · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 65 | Office of the President of the Republic | 4873/2026 | The Office declined to assist with the proposal to fly a cannabis standard above Prague Castle, referring generally to the number of requests and its limited capacity to accommodate them · PDF document | — | — | |
| 64 | Ministry of the Interior | MV-127234-2/OBP-2026 | The Ministry of the Interior refused Ganja For All Animals, z.s.’s request under Section 11b of the Freedom of Information Act, stating that it held none of the requested information · Evidence page | — | ||
| 63 | Prague Municipal Court | 18 A 23/2026-131 | Request to state whether the claimant agrees to determination without a hearing under Section 51(1) of the Code of Administrative Justice · PDF document | — | ||
| 62 | Prague Municipal Court | 18 A 23/2026-130 | Order to pay a court fee of CZK 2,000 within 15 days in the intervention action against the Ministry of Justice · PDF document | — | — | |
| 61 | European Union Drugs Agency | no separate reference number in the email | Acknowledgement of receipt of the formal call to act under Article 265 TFEU and an indication that a further response would follow · Evidence page | |||
| 60 | Prostějov District Court | 15 Nt 3105/2026-54 | The Court rejected as inadmissible under Section 283(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure an application to reopen proceedings concerning forfeiture of property · PDF document | — | ||
| 59 | Prostějov District Court | 15 Nt 3103/2026-53 | Under Section 283(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court rejected the application to reopen two proceedings concluded by orders ref. 2 Nt 1151/2014-80 and 3 Nt 1151/2014-411, in which protective measures in the form of forfeiture of property had been imposed · Evidence page | — | ||
| 58 | Office of the President of the Republic | KPR 5772/2026-2 | Following the complaint, the Office reconsidered the supplemented request, supplied further information and described the result as full relief through internal reconsideration · PDF document | — | ||
| 57 | Moravian-Silesian Regional Police Directorate | KRPT-203594-3/ČJ-2026-0700KR | Extension of the time limit for the freedom-of-information request · PDF document | — | — | |
| 56 | Office of the President of the Republic | KPR 5080/2026 | Statement concerning the supporting materials in the pardon and amnesty matter · PDF document | — | ||
| 55 | Brno Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office | 1 KZN 1079/2026-14 | Acknowledgement of receipt of the request for review · PDF document | — | — | |
| 54 | Prague 2 District Public Prosecutor’s Office | 1 ZN 157/2026-33 | Notice of the result of the examination · PDF document | — | — | |
| 53 | Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office | SIN 55/2026-19 | Decision refusing the freedom-of-information request · PDF document | — | ||
| 52 | Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | SIN 48/2026-12 | Decision refusing the freedom-of-information request · PDF document | — | ||
| 51 | Office of the President of the Republic | KPR 5772/2026-1 | Communication concerning the pardon and cannabis-amnesty procedure · PDF document | — | — | |
| 50 | Ostrava Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office | 4 KZN 7116/2026-50 | Transfer of the supplement to the filing · PDF document | — | — | |
| 49 | Office for Personal Data Protection | UOOU-05093/26-2 | Notice that review proceedings would not be initiated · PDF document | — | — | |
| 48 | Office for Personal Data Protection | UOOU-05058/26-2 | Notice that review proceedings would not be initiated · PDF document | — | — | |
| 47 | Prostějov District Public Prosecutor’s Office | ZN 4/2026-6 | Return of the matter to the Police · PDF document | — | ||
| 46 | Prague 7 District Public Prosecutor’s Office | ZN 87/2026-47 | Notice of the result of the examination · PDF document | — | — | |
| 45 | Prague High Public Prosecutor’s Office | 1 VZN 1678/2026-70 | Notice of the result of supervisory review · PDF document | — | — | |
| 44 | Ministry of Culture | MK 45728/2026 SOCNS | Commencement of a new proceeding · PDF document | — | — | |
| 43 | Ministry of the Interior | MV-114818-2/TP-2026 | Communication concerning the complaints · PDF document | — | — | |
| 42 | Brno Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | 3 ZN 140/2026-3 | Notice of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction · PDF document | — | — | |
| 41 | Brno Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office | 1 KZT 475/2026-32 | Acknowledgement of receipt of the request for review · PDF document | — | — | |
| 40 | Olomouc Regional Police Directorate | KRPM-100092-2/ČJ-2026-1412UO | Communication that the filing was placed on file · PDF document | — | — | |
| 39 | Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | 2 KZN 55/2025-122 | Communication concerning the pending proceeding and time period · PDF document | — | — | |
| 38 | Olomouc High Public Prosecutor’s Office | 3 VZN 239/2026-27 | Notice of the result of supervisory review · PDF document | — | — | |
| 37 | Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting | RRTV/7757/2026-fej | Communication concerning consideration of the submission · PDF document | — | — | |
| 36 | Ministry of the Interior | MV-97289-3/TP-2026 | Decision on the complaint · PDF document | — | — | |
| 35 | Ministry of the Interior | MV-108890-3/TP-2026 | Decision on the complaint · PDF document | — | — | |
| 34 | Prague 4 District Court | 10 C 69/2026-49 | Order to pay the court fee · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 33 | Brno Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | SIN 15/2026-5 | Notification of the file reference · PDF document | — | — | |
| 32 | Ostrava Regional Court | Fj 68842/2026/KSOS | Entry of changes in the public register · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 31 | Prague Municipal Court | 8 Ad 9/2026-22 | Order to pay the court fee · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 30 | Ostrava Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office | 4 KZN 7116/2026-45 | Transfer of the filing · PDF document | — | — | |
| 29 | Prostějov District Public Prosecutor’s Office | 1 ZT 11/2010-752 | Notice concerning the applications to reopen proceedings · PDF document | — | — | |
| 28 | Prague 4 District Court | 10 C 69/2026-14 | Request to supplement the action · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 27 | Prague 4 District Public Prosecutor’s Office | 1 ZN 320/2026-11 | Notice of the result of the examination · PDF document | — | — | |
| 26 | Institute of Criminalistics of the Police of the Czech Republic | KU-4139-5/ČJ-2026-2305KM | Response to a freedom-of-information request · PDF document | — | — | |
| 25 | Prague Municipal Court | 18 A 23/2026-25 | Request to supplement the action · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 24 | Prague High Public Prosecutor’s Office | 1 VZN 1678/2026-8 | Acknowledgement of receipt of the request for supervisory review · PDF document | — | — | |
| 23 | Court Enforcement Officer — Liberec | 131 EX 8674/15-143 | Discontinuation of enforcement proceedings · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 22 | Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | 3 KZN 197/2026-18 | Transfer of part of the filing · PDF document | — | — | |
| 21 | Czech Social Security Administration | CJ 00002/2026 | Apology and withdrawal of the previous request · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 20 | National Centre against Organised Crime | NCOZ-4871-5/ČJ-2026-410066-E | Communication stating lack of subject-matter jurisdiction · PDF document | — | — | |
| 19 | Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office | 3 KZN 197/2026-12 | Division of the filing among several authorities · PDF document | — | — | |
| 18 | Court Enforcement Officer — Plzeň | 134 EX 07180/19-509 | Discontinuation of enforcement proceedings · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 17 | Office of the President of the Republic | KPR 4093/2026 | Notice that the request for a pardon was not granted · PDF document | — | — | |
| 16 | Czech Social Security Administration | 30000/03006091/26 | Request to submit a report · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 15 | Ministry of Justice | MSP-19/2026-ODKA-ROZ/7 | Rejection of the complaint · PDF document | — | — | |
| 14 | National Centre against Organised Crime | NCOZ-4324-4/ČJ-2026-4100PI | The complaint was dealt with through internal reconsideration · PDF document | — | — | |
| 13 | Czech Television | CT 338889/2025-38 | Rejection of the settlement proposal · PDF document | — | ||
| 12 | Ministry of Health | MZDR 13429/2026-3/OLZP | Disposition of the complaint · PDF document | — | — | |
| 11 | Police Presidium of the Czech Republic | PPR-24960-8/ČJ-2026-990810 | Communication concerning a freedom-of-information request · PDF document | — | — | |
| 10 | National Centre against Organised Crime | NCOZ-4324-2/ČJ-2026-4100PI | Communication concerning a freedom-of-information request · PDF document | — | — | |
| 9 | Brno Regional Court | Fj 61060/2026/KSBR | Entry of changes in the public register · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 8 | Brno Regional Court | Fj 61072/2026/KSBR | Entry of changes in the public register · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 7 | Brno Regional Court | Fj 61061/2026/KSBR | Entry of changes in the public register · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 6 | Office of the President of the Republic | KPR 4093/2026 | Registration of the request for a pardon and cannabis amnesty · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 5 | Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office | 6 NZN 1737/2026-32 | Transfer of the filing to the Prague Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office · PDF document | — | — | |
| 4 | Olomouc District Public Prosecutor’s Office | SIN 22/2025-95 | Notice that the proceeding was discontinued because the CZK 6,800 charge for providing the requested information had not been paid · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 3 | Prague Municipal Court | 18 A 17/2026-15 | Order to pay the court fee · Evidence page | — | — | |
| 2 | Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office | 6 NZN 1737/2026-15 | Request to clarify and supplement the filing · PDF document | — | — | |
| 1 | Court Enforcement Officer — Liberec | 131 EX 8674/15-127 | Order concerning the application to discontinue enforcement proceedings · Evidence page | — | — |