Skip Navigation

Czech Republic

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 6

ON THE PAGE

Current Action Plan

2022-2024

Action Plan 6

  • Number of Commitments: 8
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

The Czech Republic’s 2022–2024 action plan includes promising commitments aimed at facilitating public oversight of small-scale public contracting as well as enhancing the transparency of state grants. Several public institutions participated in the co-creation process for the first time. High-level political input further increased the ambition of the action plan. (More)

Contact

Point of Contact

František Kučera Counsellor, Anti-Corruption Unit, Ministry of Justice fkucera@msp.justice.cz

Commitments

Resources

  1. Czech Republic CoCreation Brief 2024

    2024, IRM Report, Web page

  2. Czech Republic Action Plan Review 2022-2024

    2023, IRM Report, Web page

  3. Czech Republic Action Plan Review – For Public Comment

    2023, Report Comments, Web page

  4. Czech Republic Results Report 2020-2022

    2023, IRM Report, Web page

  5. Czech Republic Results Report 2020-2022 – For Public Comment

    2023, Report Comments, Web page

  6. Czech Republic End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2020-2022

    2023, Self Assessment, Web page

  7. Czech Republic Action Plan 2022-2024

    2023, Action Plan, Web page

  8. Czech Republic – Contrary to Process Letter (February 2023)

    2023, Letter, Web page

  9. Czech Republic Co-Creation Brief 2022

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  10. Czech Republic Transitional Results Report 2018-2020

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  11. Czech Republic Transitional Results Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  12. Czech Republic Action Plan Review 2020-2022

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  13. Czech Republic Action Plan Review 2020-2022 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  14. Czech Republic Action Plan 2020-2022

    2020, Action Plan, Web page

  15. Czech Republic End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2018-2020

    2020, Self Assessment, Web page

  16. Czech Republic Design Report 2018-2020

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  17. Czech Republic Design Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2020, Report Comments, Web page

  18. Czech Republic End-of-Term Report 2016–2018

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  19. Czech Republic End-of-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  20. Czech Republic Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  21. Czech Republic End-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  22. Czech Republic Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  23. Czech Republic Action Plan 2018-2020

    2018, Action Plan, Web page

  24. Czech Republic Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  25. Czech Republic Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  26. Czech Republic End-of-Term Report 2014-2016

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  27. Czech Republic End of Term Self-Assessment 2014-2016

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  28. Czech Republic Action Plan 2016-2018

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  29. Czech Republic IRM Progress Report 2014-2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  30. Czech Republic Midterm Self-Assessment Report (English)

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  31. Czech Republic Midterm Self-Assessment Report (Czech)

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  32. Czech Republic Action Plan 2011-2012

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  33. Czech Republic Self-Assessment 2012

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  34. Czech Republic, Second Action Plan, 2014-2016

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  35. Czech Republic 2012-2013 IRM Progress Report

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

Current Data

The data below is updated periodically, most often after large numbers of new action plans and IRM reports.

Commitment Performance

The following variables answer the question “Did this commitment open government?“, and focus on how government practices have changed as a result of the commitment’s implementation.

Key

No IRM data

Pending IRM Review

Download
Major
Outstanding
Starred Commitments
Action Plan 1
0
Action Plan 2
0
0
0
Action Plan 3
2
0
0
Action Plan 4
0

Global

Most per action plan
4
7

Regional

Most per action plan
4
7

How to Get More Starred Commitments

Starred commitments in OGP are one of the ways the IRM designates promising reforms. The graph below shows where the major areas for improvement in action plan design and implementation should take place based on past action plans.

Key

Stars (Global average 7%)

Focus on implementation

Focus on design

Pending IRM review

No IRM data

Focus on design

Focus on objectives and impact (ambition/potential impact)

Focus on relevance to open government

Focus on verifiability

Download

Public Participation

This table shows: 1) the level of public influence during the development and implementation of OGP action plans, 2) whether consultations were open to any member of the public or only to those invited; and 3) whether a forum existed that met regularly.

Key

Participation was closed

Participation was open to any interested party

No IRM data

Forum

Pending IRM review

Definitions

Collaborate: Iterative dialogue and public helped set agenda

 

Involve: Government gave feedback on public inputs

 

Consult: Public gave input

 

Inform: Government provided public with information on plan

Download
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Development

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Implementation

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4

OGP Global Report Data

The data below is drawn from the 2019 OGP Global Report. You can view and learn more about the report here.

Selected Dimensions of Open Government

This section captures how each OGP member can play a leadership role, based on IRM-based findings and third-party scores. This list does not cover all of open government and OGP members are not required to take any action.

Action implications

These are recommendations on the role that each OGP member might play in each policy area. The recommendations are derived from a combination of the IRM-based findings and third-party scores.

IRM-based findings

Reflect the performance of commitments in a particular policy area, as assessed by the IRM.

 

(NC) No Commitments
(CA) Commitment(s) in the policy area.
(IR) IRM-Reviewed: At least one IRM-assessed commitment.
(C) Was Complete: At least one commitment was substantially or fully completed.
(A) Was Ambitious: At least one commitment with moderate or transformative potential impact.
(ER) Showed Early Results: At least one commitment opened government in a “Major” or “Outstanding” way.

Third-party scores

Reflect “real-world” performance, i.e., performance outside of the OGP framework. Scores are comprised of various indicators collected by respected organizations.

Download

Anti-Corruption

Beneficial Ownership
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0 Sources
Open Contracting
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.25 Sources

Civic Space

Freedom of Assembly
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.11 Sources
Freedom of Association
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.44 Sources
Defending Journalists and Activists
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.97 Sources

Open Policy Making

Participation in Lawmaking
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.53 Sources
Regulatory Governance
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.20 Sources

Access to Information

Right to Information
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.21 Sources
Open Data (Water / Sanitation)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.00 Sources
Open Data (Health)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.00 Sources
Open Data (Education)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.20 Sources

Fiscal Openness

Transparency
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.40 Sources
Participation
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0.60 Sources
Oversight
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.32 Sources

Recent Posts

blue-ish12
Spain · Côte d’Ivoire · South Africa · Estonia · Czech Republic

Paving the Way for Strong Implementation: Introducing the IRM’s First Action Plan Reviews

In recent years, we’ve been working to answer the community’s call for a bolder and more engaging IRM through the IRM Refresh. Now, we’re excited to share the first of a series of new products – the Action Plan Review. 

Open Government Partnership