Reform of the Office for the Protection of Competition (OPC) (CZ0049)

Brief Description of the Commitment

Adoption of a bill to reform public procurement review (reform of the Public Procurement Authority) and introduce collective decision-making.

1. What problem does the commitment aim to address?

The review of public procurement in the Czech Republic is slow (objections and 4 instances) and lacks sufficient anti-corruption safeguards (especially with regard to the high concentration of powers of the chairman of the OPC), there is a contradiction between formal (who signs the decision) and material (who draws up the decision) responsibility for the decision in the second stage of the administrative procedure, and there is no solution for cases where the chairman of OPC is biased.

2. What are the causes of the problem?

The cause of the problem is the application of the general legal regulation of the Administrative Procedure Code (two-instance and appeal) and the Civil Service Act (institutional set-up of service offices) to the specific agenda of public procurement review. The application of these general principles results in an institutional set-up of the Office that does not meet the needs - i.e. in particular the need for strong anti-corruption safeguards, speed of review (also required by the EU Directive), clear accountability for decisions and ensuring the impartiality of decisionmakers. Commitment Description

1. What has been done so far to solve the problem?

The minimalist and insufficient solution was the amendment to the Act on the Competence of the Office for the Protection of Competition No. 464/2023 Coll., which introduced the term of office, qualification requirements and conditions for the dismissal of the deputy chairpersons of the OPC and thus strengthened the independence of the first stage of the proceedings at the OPC. This amendment was adopted on the basis of the requirement of the EU directive on Page 34 (total 36) competition on the independence of competition authorities. The OPC itself was the sponsor of the law implementing the Directive. However, the OPC did not initially include the requirement of the EU Directive in its Article 4 in the draft law. The article was only taken into account in the implementing draft law after the NGOs and subsequently the chairman of the Government Legislative Council pointed it out during the discussion of the Government Legislative Council and against the will of the author of the law, i.e. the OPC.

2. What solution are you proposing?

The solution requires a legislative change, which will bring in particular the following 2 institutional changes: 1) The introduction of collective decision-making. Establishment of a collective body that will decide on the review of the procurement procedure instead of the chairman of the OPC, as a single body in one-stage proceedings initiated on a petition and as an appeal body in proceedings initiated ex officio. The collective body must be independent of the chairman of the OPC. Individual cases will be decided by a collective body composed of 3 members each according to the work schedule. Clear rules will be set to deal with potential bias situations. The members of the collective body will sign their own decisions and will be accountable to the public, in particular to the community of public procurement experts who follow and critically evaluate the decision-making practice. 2) Introduction of single-instance decision-making in proceedings initiated on proposal. Proceedings initiated on the basis of a supplier's proposal will be referred directly to the collective body of the Office, which will decide at a single instance. This aspect of the reform is an aspect of good governance rather than a purely anti-corruption aspect. The introduction of singleinstance collective decision-making has the potential to completely solve the problem described above.

3. What results do we want to achieve by implementing this commitment?

The result is a change in the system of oversight of public procurement that should be more resistant to undue influence, should address bias of those directly involved in the decisionmaking of the Office and should link formal and material accountability for decisions.

Commitment Analysis Questions Answer

1. How will the commitment promote transparency? How will it help improve citizens' access to information and data? How will it make Government more transparent to citizens?
Strengthening the transparency of the decision-making of the OPC. At present, second instance decisions are not made in a transparent manner, when they are formally signed by the chairman and are therefore formally the decision of the chairman, but in reality, up to less than a dozen officials and members of appeal committees are involved in the drafting and form of the decision. However, the influence of these other persons is not recorded.

2. How will the commitment help foster accountability? How will it help public agencies become more accountable to the public? How will it facilitate citizens’ ability to learn how the implementation is progressing? How will it support transparent monitoring and evaluation systems?
The commitment will link formal and material responsibility for the decision-making of the OPC. The responsibility for decision-making will always be borne by a specific collective body composed of 3 members. These people will process the decisions themselves. They will also conduct oral hearings where they will communicate their preliminary views to the parties. The members of the collective body will then sign the decision and will also be responsible for it externally.

3. How will the commitment improve citizen participation in defining, implementing, and monitoring solutions? How will it proactively engage citizens and citizen groups?
The commitment can strengthen the participation of anticorruption NGOs in the development of key legislation that should strengthen anti-corruption safeguards and overall systemic modernization of a key central administrative authority

Milestones | Expected Outputs | Expected Completion Date

Adoption of the bill amending Act No. 134/2016 Coll., on public procurement, as amended, and Act No. 273/1996 Coll., on the competence of the Office for the Protection of Competition, as amended | Act amending Act No. 134/2016 Coll., on public procurement, as amended, and Act No. 273/1996 Coll., on the competence of the Office for the Protection of Competition, as amended | 9/2025