St Hilda's College

Cowley Place, Oxford OX4 1DY

Other affiliations


Ondřej pursues his DPhil in Law under the supervision of Dorota Leczykiewicz. Ondřej’s research topic concerns the impact of Grand Chambers on case-law of multi-panel courts. In his DPhil, Ondřej further develops his Oxford MPhil thesis on the Role of the Grand Chamber in the Decision-making of the European Court of Human Rights, which he successfully defended in January 2019 (with distinction; supervised by Alison Young).

Ondřej obtained his first law degree in 2013 at Charles University (summa cum laude), where he also defended his doctoral thesis written under the supervision of Zdeněk Kühn (2019; the thesis, written in Czech, analysed, compared, and criticized the way how the Czech Apex Courts use different decision-making formations; published in 2019 from Wolters Kluwer). He also taught undergraduate legal theory class for two years during his doctoral studies. In the course of and immediately after his first master’s studies, Ondřej attended a US dual-degree program. After two years in the Sunshine State, he obtained a Juris Doctor degree from Nova Southeastern University (2014; Fl, USA, magna cum laude). 

From 2014 to 2019, Ondřej clerked at the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic. Since 2019, he is qualified to perform the duties of a judge in the Czech Republic.

Ondřej is also a member of Judicial Studies Institute, a hub for researchers studying domestic courts, international tribunals, and bodies involved in court administration.


Recent additions

Book (2)

Journal Article (3)

O Kadlec and K Blažková, 'Co je to právo? Právněteoretický pohled na rozhodnutí Soudního dvora ve věci Al Chodor [What is Law? View of Legal Theory on the Judgment of the Court of Justice in the Al Chodor Case]' (2018) Jurisprudence 16–27
The article comments on a recent judgment by the Court of Justice in the Al Chodor case, in which the Court of Justice concluded that the criteria of the risk of absconding, the condition for a detention of migrants, must be defined in a binding provision of general application. In the article, we analyse the judgment from the theoretical perspective, in particular with regard to the difference between the formal and substantive concept of law. Firstly, we summarise the argumentation of the Court of Justice, we analyse the structure of the applied norm and we describe the theoretical foundation of the formal and substantive concept of law. Subsequently, we critically approach the reasoning of the Court of Justice and we refute its arguments in favour of the formal approach. We emphasise the detailed doctrine behind the substantive concept of law incorporating among others strict requirements on the law applying institutions. Lastly, we briefly comment on the amendment of the Act on the Residence of Aliens in the Territory of the Czech Republic and on the law in other member states.
O Kadlec and J Petrov, 'Rozšířený senát NSS: Judikatura ESLP jako zákaz vjezdu na křižovatce právních názorů [The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court: ECtHR’s case law as a no-entry sign at the crossroads of legal solutions]' (2017) 25 Soudní rozhledy 2
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court recently denied its authority to hear a proposal to overrule existing case law submitted by a three members chamber. According to the Grand Chamber a three members chambers cannot decrease a standard of human rights protection already attained by Supreme Administrative Court’s case law, if the European Court of Human Rights found the standard as a necessary condition for compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. This paper analyzes the decision of the Grand Chamber in a greater detail.
O Kadlec, 'Interpretační pravidlo v pochybnostech ve prospěch: účinný nástroj, nebo rétorická ozdoba? [The Rule of Lenity: Useful Tool or Rhetorical Ornament?]' (2016) 155 Právník 526
This article deals with the concept of interpretative doubt. The existence of such a doubt is a condition for the application of the rule of lenity, the rule used in public law. The article shows that the concept of doubt can be, and in the case law actually is, approached differently. This variedness makes the rule of lenity manipulatable. The article consists of six parts. The first introduces the rule. The second and the third analyze it from two theoretical aspects: (i) whose doubt counts, and (ii) at what point of the interpretative process the doubt is evaluated. The first aspect can be approached either from an internal perspective, which means that interpreter's internal doubt is decisive, or by an external perspective, focusing on the doubt of the addressee of the interpreted law. As to the second aspect, the rule can be applied at three different points in the interpretative process: at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. Because the aim of interpretation is to eliminate unclarity, the placement of the rule in different phases of interpretation results in a different scope of the rule of lenity. The fourth part of the article shows inconsistent approach to both aspects in the case law of Czech high courts. The fifth part proposes a solution to the problem. Doubt should be approached from an external view. Also, the rule should be applied at the point, where the process of elimination of doubt by interpretation has become unpredictable for the addressee of the law. The sixth and final part summarizes the entire article.

Chapter (1)

O Kadlec, 'Rozdíly při řešení rozdílů: Rozhodování velkých senátů českých nejvyšších soudů [Differences in Resolving Differences: Decision Making of Grand Chambers of Czech Supreme Courts]' in Bohuslav, Lukáš; Jelínek, Jiří; Macková Alena; Tryzna Jan (ed), Aktuální otázky civilního a trestního řízení [Current Questions of Civil and Criminal Procedure] (Všehrd 2016)
The paper analyses two aspects of the grand chambers of the Czech supreme courts procedure, that have not been discussed so far – extent of the review of a submitted case and selection of a reporting judge. Both Czech supreme courts approach the aspects differently. Even though the differences might seem as purely technical, the paper argues that they influence effectiveness and quality of the decision making of the grand chambers. It suggests that both procedural aspects should be governed by the quality over quantity principle: the grand chambers should not give legal opinion very often, but when they do, it has to be well-reasoned.

Research Interests

  • legal reasoning
  • judicial decision-making
  • jurisprudence
  • socio-legal studies
  • public law
  • comparative law

Research projects