## Facts

- The President of the Republic, countersigned by the Prime Minister, removed JUDr. Iva Brožová from her function as Chief Justice (President) of the Supreme Court on January 30, 2006.
- The removal relied on § 106(1) of Act No. 6/2002 Coll. (Courts and Judges Act), which permitted removal of a chief judge or deputy chief judge by the appointing authority for serious or repeated breaches of official duties.
- Brožová filed a constitutional complaint challenging the removal decision and simultaneously sought annulment of § 106(1) and postponement of the decision’s enforceability.
- A chamber of the Constitutional Court referred the statutory challenge to the plenum for incidental (concrete) review of the constitutionality of § 106(1).
- The plenum conducted constitutional review focused on the compatibility of § 106(1) with separation of powers and judicial independence guarantees, including protections associated with judicial tenure.

## Issues

1. Whether § 106(1) of the Courts and Judges Act, allowing the appointing authority to remove chief judges or deputy chief judges for alleged serious or repeated breaches of duty, violates separation of powers and judicial independence.
2. Whether the maxim “he who appoints, may remove” may govern removal of chief judges within court administration.
3. Whether chief-judge and deputy-chief-judge functions are protected components of judicial office such that removal requires judicial process rather than unilateral executive action.

## Decision

- The Constitutional Court (plenum) held § 106(1) unconstitutional and annulled it effective upon publication in the Collection of Laws.
- The Court rejected application of “he who appoints, may remove” to the removal of chief judges in the court-administration context.
- The Court characterized chief-judge and deputy-chief-judge roles as judicial career functions that remain within the constitutional protections applicable to judges.
- The Court concluded that removal from these functions may occur only on grounds set by law and on the basis of a court decision, not by discretionary executive act.
- Because the removal decision rested on the annulled provision, the statutory basis for the executive removal was constitutionally invalidated in the course of incidental norm control connected to the individual complaint.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial independence and separation of powers prohibit executive control mechanisms that permit discretionary removal of judicial leaders in a manner capable of political pressure.
- The maxim “he who appoints, may remove” does not apply to the removal of chief judges or deputy chief judges within court administration.
- Chief-judge and deputy-chief-judge functions are part of a judge’s protected professional status; they cannot be treated as separable “administrative” roles to avoid constitutional tenure-like guarantees.
- Rules governing removal of chief judges must satisfy constitutional standards applicable to judicial removal, including requirements consistent with Article 82(2) protections and judicial decision-making.
- In incidental constitutional review, annulment of an applied statutory provision removes the constitutional footing for individual executive actions based solely on that provision.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a statutory scheme that allowed the executive to remove chief judges through unilateral administrative decision, holding that leadership functions within the judiciary are protected aspects of judicial office and may be terminated only under law through judicial process consistent with separation of powers and judicial independence.


Removal of the Chief Justice (Pl. ÚS 18/06) (Czech Const. Ct. 2006)