Krajský Soud V Brně - Pobočka Jihlava

I don't know how to get started. In our society, our judiciary is at a standstill. General Courts I. and II. degrees, deeply rooted in positive and negative views, which the general public subjectively presents from ignorance of laws predominantly according to their procedural successes or failures of their affairs in the courts. In addition, the professional public embodies its views in publishing activities according to a specific field of law, which are 90% of the general public incomprehensible and inapplicable. A far more objective aspect, and to some extent almost true, is the fact that nowadays, wealthy people who have the privilege to choose a good and dear lawyer who elegantly carries them out and make them as high as possible are better and easier to access. the degree of procedural success in the matter. However, there is no such privilege for people with ordinary income, which will come out every month, and especially for people who are socially excluded. Sometimes, however, even a small miracle happens that even a complete laj, which "wrongly" hurt by a defective decision of the first instance, and who is able to appeal in appeal proceedings by a self-study of judicial decisions, case law, a decision of the Constitutional Court and an effort to understand the interpretation of all possible laws. to defend himself against the superficial and biased Judge of the Court of First Instance, and the Prosecutor with a hundred million equity with the Dear Lawyer. 20% of that miracle, as above, rests precisely in the ability of the ordinary man to recognize and at least to describe the defects of the contested decision and the grounds of appeal. An 80% miracle is a person of one particular court of appeal, here specifically the Regional Court in Brno, branch Jihlava, Mgr. Miroslav Pech, who puts the righteous trial in the first place, and the rule of law. In this particular case, it was an appeal against the rejection of a small procedural proposal by the Court of First Instance. Judge Mgr. Miroslav Pech (with two other members of his senate) correctly recognized the defects of the decision of the first instance court, annulled the contested decision and returned the case to the court of first instance. But, moreover, he has given such an enormous and meticulous work to the reasoning of his standpoint on the entire 5 pages of the resolution, where everything has been logically expanded to the utmost clarity that he likes to wonder and the expert marvel. I would be very pleased to ask all of you who read this review all the way to the end, before asking yourself about our judiciary in any form whatsoever, to ask yourself: I did for my success maximum in litigation? If the answer is YES, and any faulting judge at the first instance is proposing to you a losing defect in the proceedings, be aware that an exceptional judge is working at the Regional Court in Brno, Jihlava branch - Mgr. Miroslav Pech. Not because he complied with me, but because he justified his decision in detail on 5 pages and hence, and only because he managed to find the only substantial defect of the first instance court decision. Judge Pechu - I want to thank you with all my heart, because you and your colleagues from the city of my student years can return people to trust in just justice. Your resolution of 15 March 2019 should be cited in case law. You've done a great deal of good work, and I really appreciate you and your senate.