In PRACTICE

Anti-Bureaucratic Reform in Practice

It is widely acknowledged that our legal system is as murky as a muddy pond that keeps filling up and never drains. We face an unprecedented amount of legal regulations, as the state wields tens of thousands of legal acts and hundreds of thousands of obligations. This oversaturation not only creates a complicated bureaucratic apparatus but also places enormous demands on entrepreneurs. The unsustainable situation, worsened by the constant adoption of new laws and other regulations, has put a stop to the effective functioning of society, especially in the economic field.

Moreover, over the last two decades, the increase of regulations and obligations has accelerated. For example, the Trade Licensing Act in has been amended more than 120 times in 20 years, the Building Act over 100 times, and administrative fees more than 180 times. An ordinary entrepreneur has little chance of keeping up with such a volume of changes.

When discussing bureaucracy, the European dimension cannot be overlooked. The pace of adopting European regulations increases with every new President of the European Commission. That is why we also promote the same systemic tools at the European level as in the Czech Republic, which would limit the space for national authorities to introduce unnecessary additions.

Our Solution – The Anti-Bureaucratic Act = Act on the Protection Against Unjustified Regulatory Burden and Excessive Bureaucracy

WHAT DOES IT MEAN:

Obligation to prepare RIA (Regulatory Impact Assessment)

Overview of obligations

Obligation effectiveness measurement

Review of RIA

Proposal for removal of regulation

Legal electronic system

First, order must be brought into the legal system. We propose creating a table of public law obligations for all existing laws. Each legislation would be individually analysed, and its often complex text structured in a clear table or data record.

Example

Obligation to keep a construction log or a simple record of construction

Act No. 283/2021 Coll., Section 163(2)(d) and penalties under Section 302(2)(c)

Section 163

Contractor

(2) When constructing or removing a structure, facility, or landscaping subject to a permit under this Act, the contractor is also required to

a) carry out or remove the construction, facility or landscaping in accordance with the decision of the building authority, the verified documentation for the permit for the intention and the documentation for the execution of the construction or the documentation for the removal of the construction,

b) ensure compliance with the obligations to protect life, health, the environment and occupational safety arising from other legal regulations,,

c) ensure that work on the construction, removal or landscaping for which a special permit is required is carried out only by persons who hold such a permit,

d) keep a construction log or simple record of the construction..

Section 302

Offenses committed by selected persons

(2) The contractor commits an offense by

a) constructing or removing a structure in violation of § 163(2)(a),

b) violates any of the obligations under § 163(1) or § 163(2)(b) or (c), or

c) in violation of § 163(2)(d), fails to keep a construction log or simple record of the construction.

Section 304

Common provisions

(1) Offenses under this Act shall be dealt with by the authority competent under Sections 32 to 35; offenses under Section 302(4) and Section 303(4) shall be dealt with by the regional authority.

(2) A violation of the conditions of a decision which the building authority has incorporated into its decision on the basis of a uniform environmental opinion shall not constitute an offense under this Act.

(3) For the purposes of this part, construction shall also mean landscaping.

The concept of mandatory table compilation and regular checks

This concept of compiling obligations into tables and conducting regular checks allows the identification of imperfect definitions, insufficient deadlines, disproportionate sanctions, or overlap of inspections by several supervisory bodies.

By comparing structured tables of various laws, we can identify duplicate, contradictory, or mutually exclusive obligations. All public law obligations from all pieces of legislation can be processed in this way into a clear table. With each amendment, the table only needs to be updated. For new laws, automatic cross-checking would help detect inconsistencies with pre-existing obligations.

The proposed Anti-Bureaucratic Act also includes annual reviews of the effectiveness of imposed obligations. Ministries and authorities would evaluate whether obligations remain necessary, respected, monitored, and sanctioned. They would assess the bureaucratic burden involved, whether it is still justified or whether it could be reduced in the future.

Overgrown Bureaucracy – A Hidden Competitor to Entrepreneurs

We believe public authority should support entrepreneurs, not burden them. However, the state often exceeds its original role of safeguarding rules and begins to act as a player itself, disrupting natural competition and creating space for bureaucratic “free riders” who drain entrepreneurs’ time, money, and energy.

Therefore, we propose that organisations representing entrepreneurs should have the opportunity to initiate the removal of unjustified regulation. It is evident that, when assessing the effectiveness of legislation, there may not always be agreement between public authorities and representatives of the business community. In such cases, the resulting disagreement should be reviewed by the highest political executive body of the state – the government. It is the government that should assess whether the regulation and bureaucracy imposed on entrepreneurs constitute a disproportionate burden and whether they limit the country’s economic and social development. The government would be required, within a set deadline, to decide whether to support a proposal to remove unjustified regulation or excessive bureaucracy and submit it to Parliament for consideration, or whether it considers such a proposal unfounded and will leave the scope of regulation unchanged, in which case it must provide substantive arguments to support its position.

Our Goal is:

Systematic and continuous monitoring and reduction of unjustified regulatory and bureaucratic burdens.

To involve entrepreneurs and the public in the review process.

A clearer and more understandable legal system.

Classification of entrepreneurs’ obligations by industry and business events.

Less paperwork, more time for business.

A more effective state.

A wealthier society.

Frequently asked questions

1. Who stands behind the “Bureaucratic Detox” initiative?

The initiative was launched by the Czech Chamber of Commerce, the largest business organization in the Czech Republic. For years, the Chamber has consistently drawn attention to the growing regulatory and bureaucratic burden that slows down business and weakens the efficiency of the state. As part of the initiative, a draft Anti-Bureaucracy Act has been prepared for the Czech legal environment, aiming to systematically review and reduce public-law obligations. The key figure driving the initiative is Zdeněk Zajíček, President of the Czech Chamber of Commerce, who is the author of both the draft Anti-Bureaucracy Act and the overall concept of the Bureaucratic Detox. As a large share of the burden arises from EU legislation, the initiative also aims to promote smarter and more balanced regulation at the European level.

2. Why is it important to act now? Is it enough to limit the pace at which new regulations are introduced?

Slowing down alone will not solve the problem. For instance, the Czech legal enviroment is already overloaded with tens of thousands of regulations, many of which impose unclear, overlapping, or even contradictory obligations. What is missing is a mechanism to systematically review existing regulations and rules, evaluate their effectiveness, and remove those that no longer make sense. Without such “clean-up,” the legal environment remains complex, unpredictable, and discouraging for both entrepreneurs and public officials.

3. How will the reform work in practice?

A key element is the creation of “tables of obligations“ linked to every piece of legislation. These data structures will clearly set out who is obliged to do something, in what form, and by when. This transparency will make it easier to identify duplications, contradictions, or unnecessary sanctions. The “tables“ will be regularly updated and used as a basis when legislation is amended, helping prevent inconsistencies. The reform also introduces the principle of regular evaluation, so that obligations are continuously assessed for their relevance and efficiency.

4. What if entrepreneurs disagree with certain obligations? Do they have any tools to challenge them?

Yes. The draft Anti-Bureaucracy Act for the Czech Republic gives business organizations the right to propose changes if they identify unjustified regulatory or administrative burdens. The final decision will still rest with the government, which will be required to issue a reasoned ruling within a set deadline – either to propose the removal of the obligation, or to justify its continuation. This ensures that entrepreneurs have a structured way to challenge excessive bureaucracy.

5. What benefits can everyday entrepreneurs expect?

Above all, clarity and simplicity. Less paperwork, lower costs, and more time to focus on customers, innovation, and growth instead of form-filling. A more predictable and balanced regulatory environment will also create a fairer competitive landscape. In short, Bureaucratic Detox is designed to give entrepreneurs a legal framework that is easier to navigate.