Who should enforce debt recovery – the state or the professionals it authorises to do so? And who bears the cost of enforcement when debtors are not required to pay for it? These were among the central questions discussed at an international conference held in Prague on 22 October to mark the 25th anniversary of the Chamber of Judicial Officers of the Czech Republic. The debate is particularly relevant to Lithuania, where the state took over responsibility for certain debt recovery functions in July 2026.
“Is it fair that law-abiding taxpayers should also foot the bill for recovering unpaid fines from reckless drivers? A lower bill for the offender does not necessarily mean a lower cost to society,” said Dovilė Šnirpūnė, Managing Director of the Lithuanian Chamber of Judicial Officers, at the conference.
An offender fails to pay a fine. Who pays for its recovery?
According to Ms Šnirpūnė, debt enforcement is never free of charge. It requires staff, IT systems, data processing and administration. The difference is that judicial officers finance their own practices, whereas the costs incurred by public authorities in recovering debts are covered by the state budget.
“When the state finances the enforcement of administrative fines from public funds, all taxpayers bear the cost – including those who fulfil their obligations on time. Is that fair? Our position is clear: the additional costs of enforcement should primarily be borne by the person whose offence or failure to act made those costs necessary,” Ms Šnirpūnė said.
She also stressed that assessing the benefits of the new arrangements requires more than calculating how much debtors save. The additional costs of staff at the State Tax Inspectorate, IT systems and administration as a whole must also be taken into account.
“Judicial officers are professionals authorised by the state. Does it make economic sense to build additional capacity within public institutions to perform work they already do? And does enforcement really become cheaper if part of the cost is simply shifted from the offender to society as a whole?” Ms Šnirpūnė asked.
In her view, public authorities and judicial officers should be assessed against the same criteria: how much debt they recover, how long recovery takes and the actual cost of recovering each euro owed.
A similar debate is taking place in the Czech Republic. In September, the Czech government approved a proposal to gradually transfer responsibility for recovering outstanding social security and health insurance contributions to public authorities. The Czech Chamber of Judicial Officers has warned that such a move could reduce enforcement efficiency and state budget revenue.
“Respecting debtors’ rights does not mean forgetting creditors”
Czech Minister of Justice Jeroným Tejc reminded conference participants that while many people make genuine efforts to repay their debts, others deliberately avoid doing so. The state therefore has a duty to ensure that legitimate claims are enforced.
“Respecting the rights of debtors does not mean disregarding the rights of creditors,” the Minister stressed, citing child maintenance arrears as an example. Following the easing of criminal liability for non-payment of child maintenance in the Czech Republic at the beginning of this year, the number of enforcement proceedings relating to such debts has increased. More than 2,100 proceedings were initiated over five months – approximately 30 per cent more than during the same period last year.
Mr Tejc acknowledged that being a judicial officer is not among the most popular professions. Nevertheless, judicial officers ensure that legally binding decisions are enforced. “It is a job that does not always attract compliments, but one that society very much needs,” the Minister observed.
Justice does not end with a court judgment
“Justice does not end when a court delivers its judgment. A judgment recognises a person's right, but it does not, by itself, turn that right into reality,” said Marc Schmitz, President of the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ).
According to Mr Schmitz, the key issue is not whether debts are recovered by a public authority or a judicial officer, but who can carry out the task most effectively while safeguarding the rights of both parties to the proceedings. In Belgium, judicial officers recover debts owed to private creditors as well as to the state and local authorities. Mr Schmitz noted that previous experience had shown debt recovery by public authorities to be insufficiently effective. The UIHJ President also emphasised that, although technology is transforming the work of judicial officers, it cannot replace human judgement, proportionality and empathy.
Czech judicial officers: 25 years of operation without state funding
“The state budget does not cover our operating costs. We bear those costs ourselves,” Jan Mlynarčík, President of the Chamber of Judicial Officers of the Czech Republic, emphasised at the conference.
According to data presented at the event, the success rate of debt enforcement carried out by Czech judicial officers is approximately 44 per cent. Mr Mlynarčík considers the results achieved by public authorities to be significantly poorer, with a large proportion of claims remaining unsatisfied.
Established in 2001, the Czech judicial officer system has undergone extensive modernisation over the past quarter of a century. Electronic data exchange systems have been introduced, and auctions are now conducted electronically. There are currently 140 judicial officers practising in the country.
The international conference in Prague brought together representatives of Czech judicial institutions, professional organisations of judicial officers and foreign countries.
map:(