Daniel Köppl wins legal battle against Chamber of Deputies

The Supreme Administrative Court has ruled that the Chamber of Deputies erred when dismissing Daniel Köppl from the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting by failing to adequately address his objections before voting. The court rejected an appeal against the Prague Municipal Court's decision that had already nullified Köppl's dismissal.

Deputies removed the broadcasting council member in May 2023, claiming he had compromised the independence and impartiality of his position. Marketing consultant Daniel Köppl collaborates with the ANO movement, which nominated him to the broadcasting council in 2021. According to deputies, he acted improperly when describing the next steps in Andrej Babiš's presidential campaign during a television interview in January 2023.

In his statement to the Chamber of Deputies, Köppl argued that the legal requirement for impartiality and independence applies to activities performed by the broadcasting council itself. "The actions I am accused of do not indicate that I was following anyone's instructions or making decisions to benefit or harm any person," he objected. He stated he was never a member of Andrej Babiš's marketing team, and if the television station labeled him as such, it was done without his knowledge or consent.

Despite his explanation, the Chamber of Deputies removed him from office. Köppl challenged their decision at the Prague Municipal Court, which ruled in his favor a year later. In May 2024, the court annulled his dismissal, effectively reinstating Köppl to the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting.

The Chamber of Deputies attempted to overturn this decision with an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. On March 12, 2025, the court published its ruling dismissing the Chamber's appeal. Additionally, the Chamber must pay Köppl legal costs amounting to 420 euros.

The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the municipal court's conclusion that the Chamber of Deputies failed to address Köppl's objections and did not consider them in the dismissal resolution. The court compared the draft resolution that the Chamber had sent to Köppl for comment with the final approved version. The texts were identical, clearly showing that the Chamber had not responded to the statement they had received from Köppl in the meantime.

"In his statement, he specifically and relevantly questioned and refuted the grounds and reasons for the proposed resolution to dismiss him, therefore [the Chamber of Deputies] should have addressed his arguments," emphasized the Supreme Administrative Court.

"The requirement to address arguments and objections is not excessive formalism. Dismissal of a Broadcasting Council member represents a serious interference with their rights and duties related to this position, and must therefore be properly justified, which includes not only presenting the reasons for this dismissal as seen by the Chamber of Deputies, but also properly addressing the objections of the affected Council member," states the judgment.