How can a British company litigate in the Czech Republic

If you are a UK-based business or investor facing a commercial dispute in the Czech Republic, this article provides the specific legal answers you need. We break down the complex post-Brexit changes to jurisdiction, enforcement, and the crucial differences between UK Common Law and Czech Civil Law. This guide is your essential first step to managing cross-border commercial litigation and mitigating financial risks.

Need advice on this topic? Contact the ARROWS law firm by email office@arws.cz or phone +420 245 007 740. Your question will be answered by "Mgr. Vojtěch Sucharda", an expert on the subject.

I. Executive Summary: The New Paradigm for UK-Czech Disputes

The UK's exit from the EU has fundamentally altered the foundation for resolving commercial disputes with Czech entities, moving away from automatic judicial cooperation towards a system relying on complex international conventions and national law. This shift requires every British company operating here to re-evaluate its contractual and procedural risk exposure.

1.1 The Crucial Shift: From Automatic Recognition to Complex Treaties

The commercial relationship between the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic underwent a profound jurisdictional shift following the UK’s formal departure from the European Union (EU). Prior to this change, cross-border civil and commercial disputes relied on streamlined judicial cooperation provided by instruments such as the Brussels I Recast Regulation.

This framework ensured clear rules for jurisdiction, straightforward service of judicial documents, and, crucially, the near-automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments.

The UK’s shift to "third country" status eliminated these automatic mechanisms, creating a new paradigm for UK-Czech disputes. Litigation is now governed by a less certain, fragmented system based on a patchwork of international conventions—chiefly the Hague Conventions—and the sometimes-uncertain application of Czech national private international law.

This framework introduces significant new procedural and substantive hurdles, particularly regarding the service of documents, the establishment of jurisdiction, and, most critically, the enforceability of English judgments against Czech entities.

1.2 ARROWS’ Strategic Mandate

Navigating the transition from EU-harmonized rules to a dependence on international treaties and local law requires specialized legal guidance. ARROWS Law Firm, recognized as the Law Firm of the Year 2024 and trusted by more than 2,000 clients, including over 400 major commercial companies, is specifically positioned to provide this expertise. The firm’s established presence and deep local knowledge allow it to effectively bridge the gap between Common Law expectations and the realities of the Czech Civil Law system.

The strategic mandate for the firm is to ensure that British clients achieve effective litigation outcomes and predictable enforcement by managing the procedural and jurisdictional uncertainties introduced by the post-Brexit environment.

II. Establishing Jurisdiction and Commencing the Action: The Post-Brexit Legal Framework

Successfully initiating litigation in the Czech Republic hinges on meticulous adherence to post-Brexit procedural requirements, particularly concerning establishing a valid jurisdictional basis and ensuring flawless service of the claim on the Czech defendant. Failure at this stage can be terminal for the entire legal claim.

2.1 Determining Jurisdiction: The Treaty Landscape

The automatic rules for jurisdiction allocation that applied when the defendant was domiciled in a Member State under the Brussels I Recast Regulation no longer apply to UK-domiciled entities in disputes commenced after the transition period. Jurisdiction must now be established through international treaties or, as a last resort, national law.

The most reliable tool currently available for pre-determining jurisdiction is the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005. This convention requires courts in both the EU (including the Czech Republic) and the UK to honor and enforce judgments arising from pre-determined jurisdiction clauses.

However, the Convention's scope is strictly limited: it applies only if the underlying contract contains an exclusive choice of court agreement designating the courts of a contracting state. If the contract provides for a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, the Convention is inapplicable, forcing the parties to rely on the more complex and uncertain provisions of national law.

A forthcoming, significant development is the Hague Judgments Convention of 2 July 2019, which is scheduled to come into effect for the UK on July 1, 2025. This convention is significantly broader in scope than its predecessor, as it provides a uniform framework for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments arising from both exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses. This expansion is expected to streamline cross-border dispute resolution.

Nevertheless, the convention contains a critical temporal limitation: it applies exclusively to proceedings commenced on or after July 1, 2025. Disputes arising from existing contracts or proceedings initiated before that date must rely on the more restrictive earlier frameworks.

The current legal environment creates a paradox: existing contracts that lack exclusive jurisdiction clauses currently face the highest enforcement risk because, if litigation commenced before July 2025, they rely primarily on uncertain national law.

This forces British companies to urgently review all existing commercial agreements with Czech counterparts to identify and potentially re-negotiate jurisdiction clauses or to proactively incorporate arbitration clauses to bypass the court systems entirely, thereby mitigating strategic enforcement risk. When no treaty is applicable, jurisdiction is determined by the Czech Act on Private International Law.

2.2 Serving the Defendant: The Hague Service Convention 1965

The efficient mechanism for serving judicial documents between Member States via the EU Service Regulation (1393/2007) is now obsolete for UK-Czech proceedings. Service must now comply with the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents.

This process necessitates transmitting judicial documents via the designated Central Authority in the Czech Republic, adding layers of bureaucracy and potential delay. This shift from a cooperative EU mechanism to a more formal convention significantly elevates procedural risk.

Czech law, specifically the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No 99/1963), provides for judicial documents to be served either personally or by "regular" post. Importantly, Czech courts can declare service "ineffective" if the addressee could not objectively become acquainted with the document, such as in cases involving substituted service.

The complexity of navigating the Central Authority route, combined with the risk of Czech courts declaring service ineffective, means that procedural failure regarding notification is a significant threat. Improper service or deprivation of the right to defense is explicitly a ground for refusing recognition of a foreign judgment.

Therefore, flawless procedural compliance during the service phase is a mandatory component of successful judgment enforcement later. Local counsel must ensure that service is executed meticulously according to the Hague 1965 requirements to prevent the enforcement action from failing on technical procedural grounds.

2.3 Formal Requirements for Foreign Documents and Representation

Any foreign legal entity, such as a British company, must grant a valid Power of Attorney (PoA) for a Czech lawyer to represent it. To be admissible in Czech proceedings, public documents issued abroad must be properly verified.

Since the UK and the Czech Republic are signatories to the Hague Apostille Convention of 1961, the simplified authentication procedure applies. Documents issued by UK authorities require an Apostille certification, which verifies the authenticity of signatures and official seals. Superlegalization, the more complex, multi-stage authentication process involving consular verification, is therefore generally not required for UK public documents.

However, authentication alone is insufficient. Unless explicitly exempted by international treaty or specific Czech law (which sometimes accepts English in administrative matters), all foreign documents, including the PoA and the judgment itself, must be submitted with an official, certified translation into the Czech language. This mandatory translation requirement adds a non-negotiable step to procedural compliance, demanding proactive organization and budget allocation.

Law firm based in Prague, European Union ARROWS provides comprehensive legal services, including contract review, drafting legally required documentation, and representation in court, tailored specifically to the needs of foreign companies like yours.

Risks and penalties	How ARROWS helps
Invalid Service leading to refusal of judgment recognition.	We ensure procedural compliance via the Hague Service Convention (1965). Need legal help? Contact us at office@arws.cz.
Non-exclusive Jurisdiction Clause invalidates Hague Convention use.	Contract drafting or review to incorporate exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clauses. Get tailored legal solutions by writing to office@arws.cz.
Lack of certified translation of PoA or evidence.	Drafting legally required documentation, including mandatory certified translations. Our lawyers are ready to assist you – email us at office@arws.cz.

III. The Procedural Reality: Czech Civil Law vs. UK Common Law

For business leaders accustomed to the Common Law adversarial system of the UK, navigating Czech civil proceedings requires a critical understanding of the philosophical differences, where codified statutes and the active role of the judge shape the entire litigation experience.

3.1 Statutory Supremacy and the Judicial Role

The Czech legal system is rooted in the Germanic branch of continental legal culture (Civil Law), where written law, or codified statutes, forms the basis of the legal order. Czech civil courts interpret the law primarily through legislation and regulations. This is a critical distinction from the UK system: judicial precedent is not a formal source of law in the Czech Republic.

This statutory supremacy means that the focus in litigation is heavily placed on applying the relevant code provisions, such as the Code of Civil Procedure (občanský soudní řád). The judge, unlike the largely passive arbiter in the UK, often takes a more active, inquisitorial role in directing the development of facts and the presentation of evidence.

3.2 Evidence Gathering: The Absence of Wide-Ranging Discovery

One of the most complex procedural hurdles for British companies is the process of evidence gathering. In the UK (and even more so in the US), extensive pre-trial discovery or disclosure is customary, compelling parties to hand over documents relevant to any claim or defense, including those that undermine their own position.

This broad concept of pre-trial discovery is largely unknown in the Czech Civil Law context. Although courts may order the production of specific documents, litigation strategy cannot be premised on forcing the Czech counterparty to disclose internal documents through a blanket discovery process.

This restriction dictates a significant strategic adaptation. Litigation success hinges almost entirely on the evidence the company already possesses or evidence that can be meticulously generated by experts and witnesses. This scarcity of external evidence transforms robust internal compliance documentation (internal policies, communication records, training logs)  from a mere regulatory necessity into a crucial element of litigation readiness and evidence generation.

FAQ – Legal tips about Evidence in Czech Litigation

1. Can I force my Czech counterparty to disclose internal documents like in the UK?

Answer: No. The Czech Civil Law system generally lacks the broad pre-trial discovery (disclosure) common in the UK. Success relies on evidence you already possess. Get tailored legal solutions by writing to office@arws.cz.

2. Are judicial precedents binding on Czech courts?

Answer: Unlike Common Law, judicial precedent is not a formal source of law here; courts focus on codified statutes (občanský soudní řád). For immediate assistance, write to us at office@arws.cz.

3. How can I ensure my internal documents will be effective evidence in court?

Answer: You must ensure robust internal compliance documentation (policies, communication records) is meticulously maintained. Need legal help? Contact us at office@arws.cz.

3.3 Litigation Costs and Recovery: The Tariff Decree Limitation

The Czech civil justice system follows the general principle that the unsuccessful party must reimburse the successful party’s costs. This includes court fees and the costs of legal representation determined by statute.

However, the reality of financial recovery is severely limited by the Tariff Decree (Decree on Reimbursement for Costs of Proceedings). This Decree fixes the amount recoverable for legal fees, meaning the amount awarded to the successful party is typically only a fraction of the actual legal costs incurred. For example, in commercial proceedings, the fixed statutory reimbursement often ranges merely between EUR 500 and EUR 15,000, irrespective of the actual, high costs associated with complex international litigation.

The Czech Constitutional Court has observed that the costs awarded under this fixed-tariff system often result in a "clear disproportion" to the sued value of the dispute. This procedural mechanism creates a hidden cost of winning: the de jure victory often results in a de facto financial loss due to unrecovered legal expenditure.

For British companies, this financial reality means that tight cost control and strategic choices—such as opting for arbitration or aggressive early settlement—become essential priorities, as substantial recovery of legal fees through the courts is highly unlikely.

IV. Substantive Risk Focus: Contractual Pitfalls Unique to Czech Law

Beyond procedural differences, specific components of Czech substantive law present unique financial hazards. Foremost among these are the statutory rules governing contractual penalty clauses (smluvní pokuta), which are enforced much more strictly than their counterparts in Common Law jurisdictions.

4.1 Understanding Smluvní Pokuta (Contractual Penalties)

The smluvní pokuta is a liquidated damages clause common in Czech commercial contracts. It stipulates that the breaching party incurs an additional obligation, usually financial, upon failing to meet a contractual duty. Its function is both punitive and preventive, intended to secure performance.

Unlike Common Law jurisdictions, which often scrutinize or void penalties deemed punitive, Czech courts generally uphold these clauses, even when they appear excessive. A penalty stipulating 0.5% of the total contract value per day of delay, which can lead to rapid accrual and erase profit margins, is a recognized risk.

The strict enforcement of smluvní pokuta means that an unexpected delay due to an administrative issue could quickly trigger massive financial exposure.

FAQ – Legal tips about Contractual Penalties

1. Is a standard 0.5% per day penalty likely to be upheld by a Czech court?

Answer: Yes, penalties (smluvní pokuta) are generally upheld, even if seemingly high. Relying on judicial moderation is risky.44 Get tailored legal solutions by writing to office@arws.cz.

2. If I agree to a contractual penalty, can I still claim full damages if the loss is greater?

Answer: Not unless your contract explicitly states that the penalty does not exclude the right to claim full damages, as per Section 2050 of the Civil Code.36 Our lawyers are ready to assist you – email us at office@arws.cz.

4.2 Judicial Moderation: An Exceptional Tool

Czech law does provide for the judicial moderation of a contractual penalty if it is found to be "unreasonably high". However, moderation is considered an exceptional instrument, left to the court’s strict discretion.

To successfully argue for moderation, the court must analyze the intended function of the penalty, the specific circumstances of the breach, and the importance of the secured obligation. The critical difficulty is the burden of proof: the debtor (the party facing the penalty) must allege and prove that the clause is unreasonable. If this burden is not met, the court cannot proceed to moderation.

The high threshold for judicial moderation, combined with the difficulty in obtaining necessary external evidence due to the Civil Law limitations on discovery, means that the contractual penalty becomes a powerful negotiation lever for the Czech counterparty.

The strategic implication is that British companies must not rely on the court's correctional power; instead, they must seek expert advice to ensure penalty clauses are carefully negotiated and drafted to be reasonable and commercially viable before a dispute arises. Furthermore, attempts to introduce new facts regarding unreasonableness in appeal proceedings are limited.

4.3 Interaction with Damages and the Role of Compliance

Under Section 2050 of the Czech Civil Code, the default rule states that if a contractual penalty is agreed, the creditor cannot generally claim damages exceeding the amount of the penalty. This rule effectively makes the penalty a cap on recoverable losses, which may be inadequate for large-scale commercial breaches.

To protect against potentially significant damages, sophisticated legal drafting is required to explicitly state that the contractual penalty does not exclude the creditor’s right to claim full damages exceeding the penalty amount.

Separately, British companies must manage the risk of administrative penalties levied by Czech authorities such as the Financial Administration or the Office for Personal Data Protection (GDPR). The Czech framework for corporate criminal liability reinforces the need for robust internal compliance: a company may be held liable for an employee’s criminal offense if management failed to establish effective controls.

Law enforcement authorities strictly scrutinize whether the company’s compliance program is effective, requiring concrete proof that ethical and control mechanisms are reflected in everyday processes.

International law firm operating from Prague, European Union. Our ARROWS International network was built over 10 years to handle cross-border matters, ensuring that your contractual and compliance needs are managed effectively across jurisdictions.

Risks and penalties	How ARROWS helps
Excessive Smluvní Pokuta (contractual penalty) upheld by court.	Contract drafting or review to ensure penalty clauses are reasonable and commercially viable. For immediate assistance, write to us at office@arws.cz.
Unrecovered Legal Costs due to Tariff Decree limits (only a fraction recoverable).	Legal analysis – want to understand your legal options? Email us at office@arws.cz.
Corporate Criminal Liability for employee misconduct due to compliance failure.	Preparation of internal company policies (CMS) to prove due managerial care. Need legal help? Contact us at office@arws.cz.

V. Cost, Duration, and Recovery: Evaluating Litigation vs. ADR

When evaluating whether to proceed with commercial litigation in the Czech Republic, foreign management must realistically assess the costs, the likely duration of court proceedings, and the financial limits imposed on the recovery of legal fees. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), particularly arbitration, often provides a superior strategic choice for international firms.

5.1 Court Litigation Timelines

The Czech judicial system has demonstrated improvements in efficiency, with judges ruling on civil actions at the first instance within an average of approximately six months.

However, the complex nature of commercial disputes often leads to protracted litigation. Cases are frequently appealed to higher courts and may be remanded back to the court of first instance for further hearings, substantially prolonging the overall timeline.

Moreover, administrative proceedings—common for foreign companies challenging regulatory penalties—can still involve lengthy periods, with historical averages reaching over 450 days, and up to 558 days in major metropolitan centers like Prague.

5.2 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Arbitration remains the strategically superior choice for international commercial disputes. Arbitration offers key advantages: closed sessions, quicker resolution, and greater cost-efficiency compared to courts. Crucially, arbitral awards benefit from easier international enforcement via the New York Convention.

While court timelines show improvement, international institutional arbitration (such as that handled by the ICC, which ARROWS utilizes) concluded cases with final awards in 2024 with an average duration of 26 months, and a median of 22 months. These metrics highlight arbitration as a time-saving alternative for high-value disputes. Furthermore, the Mediation Act (No. 202/2012) provides a legal framework for registered mediators, facilitating pre-litigation resolution.

The following table summarizes the strategic trade-offs inherent in the Czech Civil Law system compared to the familiar Common Law framework.

Aspect	UK (Common Law/English Courts)	Czech Republic (Civil Law)
Legal System Basis	Adversarial; Judicial precedent is binding (stare decisis).	Inquisitorial; Reliance on codified statutes; Precedent is not a formal source of law.
Evidence Gathering	Broad discovery/disclosure; lawyers actively compel production of third-party evidence.	Highly restrictive; reliance primarily on client-held evidence and specific, limited court-ordered production.
Cost Recovery (Adverse Costs)	Substantial portion of reasonable legal costs (often 60–70%) recoverable by the successful party.	Capped by the Tariff Decree; only a fixed statutory fraction of actual fees is recoverable.
Contractual Penalties	Often viewed as punitive; subject to high common law standards of reasonableness or voidability.	Smluvní Pokuta generally upheld; moderation is exceptional and requires the debtor to prove unreasonableness.

VI. The Ultimate Hurdle: Recognition and Enforcement of UK Judgments

Securing a favorable judgment in the English courts is only the first step. The true challenge post-Brexit lies in the recognition and enforcement of that judgment against assets held by the Czech counterparty, a process now fraught with legal ambiguity concerning the principle of reciprocity.

6.1 Post-Brexit Enforcement: The Reciprocity Requirement

With the loss of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, UK judgments must rely on international conventions or, by default, Czech national private international law.

Where treaties do not apply, national law becomes the determinant, introducing the requirement that reciprocity has not been guaranteed between the UK and the Czech Republic. If an English judgment is directed against a Czech legal entity, the creditor must satisfy the Czech court that the UK would offer reciprocal recognition of a Czech judgment.

The process of enforcing foreign judgments in the Czech Republic is characterized as "quite unpredictable" due to the variability associated with reciprocity arrangements. This ambiguity significantly devalues an English judgment obtained against a Czech counterparty, as the enforcement mechanism is no longer automatic and may be contested based on uncertain reciprocity requirements. This high enforcement risk substantially strengthens the argument for selecting Czech jurisdiction or, preferably, arbitration within the underlying contract.

6.2 Grounds for Non-Recognition

While a Czech court will not re-examine the substance of the underlying case, it will scrutinize the judgment against specific procedural and public order safeguards :

1. Public Order (Ordre Public): Recognition will be denied if it would "clearly contravene public order". A prime example involves damages: while the Czech Supreme Court permits the recognition of foreign punitive damages, it may refuse enforcement if the amount is "manifestly disproportionate to the harm," thereby contradicting Czech public policy.
2. Procedural Defects: Recognition will be refused if the defendant was deprived of the ability to duly participate in the proceedings, primarily through improper service of the summons or motion.
3. Conflicting Judgments: If an enforceable Czech judgment or a previously recognized judgment from a third state covers the same subject matter.
4. Exclusive Czech Jurisdiction: If the dispute falls under a matter reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Czech courts.

6.3 The Enforcement Procedure

If enforcement is sought, a motion must be lodged with the court of first instance according to the defendant's place of residence or, alternatively, the place where the defendant has assets in the Czech Republic. This procedural requirement strategically links the enforcement application to asset identification and tracing.

The foreign judgment must be submitted along with a statement from the competent UK authority confirming that the judgment is final and legally effective. Recognition takes place concurrently with the enforceability proceedings. Ultimately, the timeframe for success depends heavily on the debtor’s solvency.

The current environment necessitates a clear understanding of the relevant enforcement basis:

Risks and penalties	How ARROWS helps
Non-recognition of UK judgment due to lack of guaranteed reciprocity.	Legal consultations to evaluate the enforcement strategy before litigation begins. Do not hesitate to contact our firm – office@arws.cz.
Public Order Refusal if UK judgment awards excessive punitive damages.	Legal opinions on the risk of challenging foreign damages awards in Czech court. Our lawyers are ready to assist you – email us at office@arws.cz.
Protracted Enforcement against complex assets due to debtor insolvency.	Representation in court and before enforcement authorities to trace and secure assets. Need legal representation? Write to office@arws.cz.

VII. ARROWS' Strategic Advantage: Proactive Protection and Seamless Representation

Navigating this complex post-Brexit legal environment demands a counsel that combines deep local expertise with international strategy. ARROWS Law Firm, a leading Czech law firm in Prague, EU, provides British companies with the essential legal infrastructure, spanning proactive contract management, specialized court representation, and crucial compliance guidance.

7.1 Proactive Legal Risk Mitigation

ARROWS specializes in proactive legal protection, ensuring commercial contracts are robust, enforceable, and tailored to Czech law. This includes the crucial step of mitigating the smluvní pokuta risk by ensuring contractual penalties are drafted reasonably and, where necessary, that the right to claim full damages exceeding the penalty is explicitly reserved.

Given the limitations on discovery (Section III.2), ARROWS emphasizes that legal defense begins long before litigation. The firm helps foreign companies implement Compliance Management Systems (CMS).

A well-designed, functional CMS, which demonstrates that management established effective controls, can exempt a company from corporate criminal liability by proving due diligence. This approach ensures that the necessary documentation and processes are in place to serve as reliable evidence should a dispute arise.

7.2 Expert Litigation Management

ARROWS’ legal team is adept at navigating the procedural complexities of the Czech Civil Law system, structuring cases strategically to align with the country's evidence limitations and the active role of the judge. The firm provides representation in all stages of court proceedings, including before the Supreme and Constitutional Courts ⁴⁶, and handles disputes against administrative authorities such as the Financial Administration and the Office for Personal Data Protection.

Recognizing the speed and enforceability benefits, ARROWS has extensive experience representing clients in arbitration before key domestic and international institutions, including the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and the ICC in Paris.

7.3 Professional Training and Director Liability

The risk of personal financial ruin associated with director liability for breach of "due managerial care" under Czech law mandates preventive action. ARROWS offers certified professional training for management on director duties and general compliance. These programs ensure decision-makers are equipped with critical legal knowledge to avoid pitfalls and minimize personal risk.

7.4 Global Reach, Local Expertise

ARROWS lawyers combines deep knowledge of both local foreign markets and the legal differences between the Czech Republic and other jurisdictions. ARROWS leverages its international network (ARROWS International) across more than 90 countries, providing comprehensive legal and tax services under one roof.

This network is crucial for seamless support in cross-border transactions and for executing complex enforcement strategies that require coordinating legal action in multiple jurisdictions, positioning ARROWS as the essential partner for navigating Central European legal challenges. ARROWS lawyers supports over 150 joint-stock companies and 250 limited liability companies in the Czech Republic.

VIII. Conclusion: Securing Your Position in the Czech Market

The post-Brexit landscape demands a recalibration of legal strategy for British companies operating in the Czech Republic. The automatic security provided by EU judicial instruments has been replaced by procedural uncertainty regarding service and the high strategic risk associated with enforcing UK judgments, largely due to the unresolved reciprocity requirement under Czech national law.

Furthermore, the inherent structure of Civil Law introduces unfamiliar challenges concerning evidence gathering and cost recovery limits.

Effective management of these risks requires more than standard cross-border counsel. It necessitates local expertise that can proactively address the complexities of treaty law, advise on the unique financial exposures of smluvní pokuta, and structure litigation strategy to succeed within the strict procedural confines of Czech Civil Law.

ARROWS Law Firm, a leading Czech law firm based in Prague, European Union, provides this essential combination of proactive contract review, specialized litigation expertise, and robust compliance measures to ensure that legal risks are converted into secured commercial opportunities.

FAQ – Most common legal questions about UK-Czech Commercial Litigation

1. Where should I file a lawsuit against a Czech company now that the UK is outside the EU?

Answer: Jurisdiction relies on international treaties like the Hague Choice of Court Convention (if there’s an exclusive clause) or Czech national private international law.35 Need legal help? Contact us at office@arws.cz.

2. Does a Power of Attorney (PoA) granted to a Czech lawyer require authentication?

Answer: Yes, a PoA issued in the UK requires an Apostille certification, as both countries are signatories to the Hague Convention of 1961.16 Our lawyers are ready to assist you – email us at office@arws.cz.

3. How long does a typical civil case take in the Czech Republic?

Answer: The average duration for a first-instance civil action is around six months, but complex commercial cases with appeals are often protracted and can last much longer.38 For immediate assistance, write to us at office@arws.cz.

4. Why is arbitration often better than court litigation for UK-Czech disputes?

Answer: Arbitration offers a quicker resolution (median 22 months for ICC), greater cost efficiency, and simpler international enforcement via the New York Convention.23 Get tailored legal solutions by writing to office@arws.cz.

5. What is the biggest risk when enforcing a UK judgment against a Czech debtor?

Answer: The primary risk is the refusal of recognition by the Czech court due to the requirement that reciprocity has not been guaranteed between the UK and the Czech Republic under national law.2 Do not hesitate to contact our firm – office@arws.cz.

Protect your cross-border operations and ensure the enforceability of your commercial agreements. For tailored legal solutions and a consultation with our expert team, contact ARROWS today. Email us at office@arws.czor call us at 245 007 740.

Don't want to deal with this problem yourself? More than 2,000 clients trust us, and we have been named Law Firm of the Year 2024. Take a look HERE at our references.