In the past, CTI published names of all gas stations that failed the tests. When did you published this list for the last time? Why did you stop publishing these lists?

Well, I personally do not understand why the ex-management of the CPI published these lists in the first place. Before I took over the position of the General Director, CTI was under pressure from the media and therefore published subjects that failed the tests. Unfortunately, court trials filed against CTI and suing for damages done to the good name of the damaged subject quickly followed.



Last year you gave the biggest overall penalty to company called Unicorn Oil. They publicly admitted to it but filed an appeal against the penalty. Was the appeal decided yet? Does the dispute go on?

Unfortunately, I cannot give out any statements because the process is still on (including corrective issues) and therefore, by law, this information is not publicly available.

Many professionals and experts in constitutional and consumer rights issues and even ombudsman deputy agreed with the test results publishing. That is rather big opposition against an individual opinion of the CTI. According to you, only the Supreme court may decide about publishing such information. Did you ask the Supreme court to give you a statement? Or, do you despite the opinions of well-respected professionals wait until someone else approaches the court?

Everyone has a right to an opinion. CTI stands by its legal opinion and that is, that due to the current legislature, we do not have the right to publish name of subjects that failed the tests. We have no reason to ask the courts, because everybody has the right to claim his or her rights before the court. This does not concern only petrol and fuels, but also the decisions that are passed by the courts. Therefore, we are awaiting the decision of the Supreme court, ordering us to publish all names of the inspected subjects.

Is there a limit, when you would be willing to change you approach and publish information about one particular gas station? For example, if such gas station sells fuels so bad that using it would damage the engine or it could even be dangerous to people´s lives?

As far as fuels are concerned, it is almost impossible because after samples of fuel are taken and processed for analysis, we need some time to come up with the results and to compare them against norms. To issue a warning or point out a danger that may not already be current or present does not make sense. In any case, based on the monitoring results of fuels done during 2008, it is clear that such scenario did not occur.

You are arguing that bad test results are rare. But that is the case with all manufacturers or sellers. If I exaggerate, it is like a thief arguing that he stole only once in the past month and today he is not stealing anymore. In other cases you inform about inspections that took place earlier, even though the current status may not be bad anymore.

It is not possible to view everyone as a thief. Presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is what we must respect. If the inspected person is not happy with the results or decision of the inspection authority, it may use all legal means available to defend himself or herself. Or the person may go to a court, which shall pass the final decision.  In any case, well-respected professional in the fuel business such as Ing. Vladimír Matějovský said:  Any variations, even very small ones of the tested parameters are considered as divergence from the standard and inspectors will include it in the unsatisfactory statistics. The important issue is that the measured variations, in most cases, have almost no negative influence on the operation, power output or durability of the engine or on the environment", explains his opinion Mr. Matějovský.

You do not need to inform the public that this or that particular network of gas stations is bad. But why not publish that this one particular station (not the entire network) did not pass the test on a certain date? This cannot be attacked. It almost seems that you are not confident that your inspection results are correct and that you cannot defend the obtained results.

By law, we cannot deny the right for corrective elements.  We know that in reality, decisions made by courts vary, because we do not have precedential law in the Czech Republic. CTI has always been standing behind its decisions. And we are sure that our policies and procedures are correct. At the same time we must respect the decision done by the court. Plus, the decisions relevant to the imposed penalty, as described by the applicable executive order, are directed toward the inspected subject and that is the one particular gas station and not the entire network of gas stations.

You are arguing that you cannot publish the test results because the law does not allow you to do so. What law do you have in mind? The CTI law protects trading secrets only. And on the other hand, the Free information access law states otherwise.

Not only the inspection law prevents us from releasing the test results but also other laws, such as the Personal data protection law and lastly the Supreme law, which is the Constitution of the Czech Republic. All these laws protect us from deliberate actions and misuse of power by authorities or state bureaucracy. Sometimes one law is in conflict with other law and that does not mean that one law automatically overrides the other one. Which law is the primary shall be decided by the court of law.

Why are you afraid to publish only the list of gas stations that failed the tests? Surely, they will not complain and the consumers would have some information at least. And naturally, that would not mean that other gas stations are bad. Plus, the other stations may have not even participated in the testing?

CTI is not afraid to publish the results of its work. It is done quite often. But we must respect all laws. Publishing names of gas stations that failed the tests could be viewed as hidden advertisements or as discrimination of other subjects.