Noc Prava 2026: When Institutions Enter Everyday Life
My March 18th 2026 started at Jihomoravsky Krajsky Urad (South Moravian Regional Office), where, apart from everything else, we discussed public talks.
How to communicate complicated ideas and the reasons behind government actions to the general audience, and how to communicate them effectively?
Let’s try to answer those questions.
As an educator, I share the confusion, as sometimes my students fail to establish the connection between an extremely elaborate theory and its practical application, or its relevance to their day-to-day life. And it’s our task to help them to establish that connection as they are just starting their path in the professional environment. It is our task to equip them with the instruments of understanding and educate them on how to use those, and it is their work to apply those instruments to build their future success.
However, not only students and educators struggle to connect the work and the very existence of academia and other seemingly intricate systems, such as the judiciary, to their professional life and, on a more global scale, to their country and its progress.
My search for the answers brought me to the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, where on March 18th 2026 twelve legal professionals, representatives of twelve European countries, gathered to exchange opinions and share them with the general public.
Reconnecting professionals and the general public
Opinions and supporting comments I heard at the Noc Prava have decidedly convinced me that legal specialists and the institution of the judiciary have a lot in common with scientists and academia when it comes to communication with the general audience.
Bettina Limperg, President of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany, emphasised the role of the judiciary in “bringing people together again” so as to avoid miscommunication and promote inclusivity of all parties involved.
President Limperg later added that she finds it crucially important to establish a clear and reliable channel of communication between the judiciary and the general audience, to communicate the role of the institution clearly and in understandable terms.
Social Media vs Traditional Media
Stefano Mogini, Deputy First President of the Supreme Court of Italy, added that, regardless of the unarguable benefits of social media, it can not be considered an entirely reliable channel of communication. Alternatively, said President Mogini, an Italian practice can be implemented, which implies inviting trustworthy journalists from the established media outlets to join the discussion and deliver the message to the general public.
Yes, that basically means the journalists should do their job and be encouraged to do so when it comes to the judiciary and/or academia. Consequently, President Mogini justly suggests that the task of establishing the connection between the institutions and the general audience should be entrusted to the professional communicators, in the case of Italy, to the journalists.
From a professional standpoint, I fully support this approach. My firm belief is that communication between parties should be primarily entrusted to those who are properly educated and trained to transmit information without distortion and in the language that the audience accepts and understands.
Institutions Get Personal
Other participants, including the President of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, Petr Angyalossy, voiced an opinion that the communicator role should belong to the institutions and be available predominantly at the official webpages and via professional digests.
This approach was supported by Donal O’Donnell, Chief Justice of Ireland, who underlined the significance of personal communication between the established professionals of the industry and those who are about to enter the industry from universities.
What is the Final Solution?
Joining the members of the audience at the Noc Prava, I don’t find myself equipped enough to advise either the judiciary or academia. However, as soon as President Limperg expressed an interest in the public’s opinion, I would like to offer one.
I engage with the world through social media, primarily Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube, rarely official web pages or search engines, never via traditional media (as I am biased against them and I question the expertise, motives, and the very grounds of the contributors).
My path looks this way: Instagram reels or posts with the core information, then I proceed to the official webpage, where I find an adapted version of a recent legislation or scientific article. Ok, it’s never adopted. And that’s the issue.
The Answers
Institutions, whether it is the judiciary or academia, seemed to forget that people live their lives and it’s not their job to learn our very special terminology to be able to comprehend a new bit of information in a field they have no special knowledge about. That’s our job, that is our assigned role, that is what we are paid for — to discover the path further and communicate it to the general audience in a clear and concise manner.
My suggestion mirrors the suggestion of Tatu Leppänen, President of the Supreme Court of Finland, regarding the structure of the courts: there is the top of the pyramid, the Supreme Courts, and there is the middle, the Regional and High Courts, and the base part, the District Courts. Assuming the institutions form the top by researching, developing and generating what later becomes guidelines for our society, there is a need for educated professionals to become intermediaries between the developers and the base of our society, the general audience.
Communication this way should belong to the middle part: journalists, educators, and communicators who are skilled enough to understand the professionals and translate their ideas and discoveries into practical, everyday actions accessible to all individuals, regardless of their expertise.
Among others, Ianina Editorial is here to take this role.
Ianina, 2026