How Luxembourg Businesses Can Pursue Court Action in the Czech Republic: Understanding the Court System

Facing a commercial dispute in the Czech Republic requires Luxembourg businesses to navigate complex local procedures where a single missed deadline can cost millions. This article delivers specific answers on the Czech court system, litigation costs, and enforcement strategies to help you resolve disputes efficiently and safely.

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.

Bridging the Legal Divide Between Luxembourg and the Czech Republic

For Luxembourg-based entities, whether they are investment funds managing diverse portfolios, financial institutions engaged in cross-border lending, or industrial conglomerates with Central European supply chains, the prospect of pursuing legal action in the Czech Republic often evokes a mixture of caution and uncertainty. 

The economic corridor between the Grand Duchy and the Czech Republic is robust, driven by the free movement of capital and services within the Single Market. However, when commercial relationships fracture, the enforcement of rights moves from the harmonized abstraction of European Union directives to the granular, formalistic reality of the Czech civil court system.

While the European Union provides a unifying framework for cross-border disputes through instruments like the Brussels I bis Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012), the operational reality on the ground in Prague, Brno, or Ostrava remains distinctly local. 

The Czech legal environment is characterized by a high degree of procedural formalism, a mandatory reliance on state-monitored electronic communication via "Data Boxes" (datové schránky), and a rigorous adherence to statutory deadlines that can extinguish valid multi-million Euro claims if missed by a single day.

This comprehensive report serves as a definitive operational manual for Luxembourg businesses facing commercial disputes in the Czech jurisdiction. It moves beyond theoretical legal principles to provide actionable intelligence on the mechanics of the Czech court system, the intricate calculation of litigation costs, the enforceability of Luxembourg judgments in Bohemia and Moravia, and the critical pre-litigation steps that determine financial recovery.

The Czech market represents a significant opportunity for Luxembourg capital, yet the enforcement of rights requires a nuanced understanding of local procedure. Unlike the common law tendencies or the specific arbitration cultures that may influence international business elsewhere, Czech civil procedure is deeply rooted in the continental civil law tradition. Here, the judge acts as the arbiter of fact and law, documentary evidence reigns supreme over oral testimony, and procedural missteps are rarely forgiven.

Crucially, this report addresses the specific risks facing foreign entities, such as the mandatory "loser pays" principle for legal fees—calculated not by actual spend but by a complex statutory tariff—and the non-negotiable requirement for a pre-litigation notice (předžalobní výzva) to secure cost reimbursement. Furthermore, we examine the implications of the new Class Action Act of 2024, the electronic order for payment systems, and the strict statutes of limitation that govern commercial claims.

By leveraging the expertise of ARROWS, a firm with substantial insurance coverage and deep local roots, Luxembourg clients can navigate these complexities with the assurance that their legal strategy is both robust and commercially sound. This document outlines the pathway from the initial breach of contract to the final seizure of assets, providing the strategic foresight necessary to turn legal entitlements into recovered capital.

The Jurisdiction of Choice: Why Czech Courts Matter for Luxembourg Business

In the landscape of European commercial litigation, the choice of forum is often dictated by contractual clauses or the domicile of the defendant. For Luxembourg companies doing business in Central Europe, the Czech courts frequently become the unavoidable venue for dispute resolution. Understanding why and when to engage this system is the first step toward successful recovery.

The Brussels I bis Regulation and the Actor Sequitur Forum Rei Principle

The foundational rule governing jurisdiction within the European Union is established by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, commonly known as the Brussels I bis Regulation. This regulation serves as the "constitution" of cross-border civil litigation in Europe, ensuring that judgments issued in one Member State are recognized in others without the need for intermediate proceedings.

For a Luxembourg creditor seeking to recover debts from a Czech counterparty, the primary jurisdictional anchor is the principle of actor sequitur forum rei—the plaintiff follows the forum of the defendant. This maxim dictates that, unless a valid choice-of-court agreement stipulates otherwise, a defendant domiciled in a Member State must be sued in the courts of that Member State.

Consequently, if a Luxembourg entity has a claim against a company with its registered seat in Prague or Brno, the default venue for the lawsuit is the Czech Republic.

While this might initially appear disadvantageous due to the perceived "home court advantage" of the defendant, engaging the Czech courts offers distinct strategic benefits for a foreign plaintiff:

1. Asset Proximity: A judgment obtained in the Czech Republic is a domestic title. It is immediately enforceable against assets located within the territory—such as bank accounts, real estate, or enterprise value—bypassing the need for cross-border enforcement mechanisms that would apply if the judgment were obtained in Luxembourg and then exported.

2. Cost Efficiency: While legal costs in Luxembourg can be substantial, Czech litigation, despite its formal fees, can be more cost-effective if managed correctly. The capping of court fees for high-value disputes and the transparency of statutory tariffs allow for precise budgeting.

3. Surprise Element: Initiating proceedings in the debtor's home jurisdiction often signals a seriousness of intent that remote demand letters from a foreign law firm fail to convey. It demonstrates that the Luxembourg creditor has "boots on the ground" and is navigating the debtor's own legal environment proficiently.

Exceptions to the General Rule: Contract and Tort

The Brussels I bis Regulation provides for "special jurisdiction" in Article 7, allowing a plaintiff to sue in a Member State other than that of the defendant's domicile under specific circumstances. This is critical for Luxembourg businesses determining whether they must or should sue in the Czech Republic.

• Matters Relating to a Contract: Jurisdiction lies with the courts of the place of performance of the obligation in question. For the sale of goods, this is the place where the goods were delivered or should have been delivered. For the provision of services, it is the place where the services were provided.

• • Scenario: If a Luxembourg tech firm provides software implementation services at a client's HQ in Prague, the place of performance is the Czech Republic. The Czech courts have jurisdiction under Article 7(1), reinforcing the general rule. Conversely, if a Czech manufacturer is to deliver goods to Luxembourg, the Luxembourg courts might have jurisdiction. However, enforcing a Luxembourg judgment in CZ requires an additional administrative step (though streamlined), whereas a Czech judgment is instantly executable by a Czech bailiff.

• Matters Relating to Tort: In cases of non-contractual liability (e.g., unfair competition, damages from negligence), jurisdiction lies with the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.

The Power of Choice-of-Court Agreements

One of the most powerful tools for managing cross-border risk is a choice-of-court agreement (jurisdiction clause) included in the commercial contract. The Brussels I bis Regulation gives strong legal effect to these agreements. If parties have agreed that the courts of a particular Member State (e.g., Luxembourg) will have exclusive jurisdiction, those courts will have precedence.

However, Luxembourg businesses often find themselves in situations where:

1. The contract has no jurisdiction clause.
2. The clause is defective.
3. The commercial reality dictates that suing in the Czech Republic is faster because the assets are there.

In these cases, understanding the internal hierarchy of the Czech court system becomes paramount.

The Mechanics of the Czech Judicial System

The Czech court system is a four-tiered hierarchy designed to handle civil, criminal, and administrative matters. Unlike jurisdictions with separate commercial courts (such as the Tribunal de commerce in France), the Czech system integrates commercial disputes into the general court system but assigns them to specific tiers based on complexity and value.

The Four-Tier Hierarchy

1. District Courts (Okresní soudy):

• Function: These are the courts of first instance for the vast majority of disputes. They function as the entry point for general civil litigation.
• Commercial Competence: They handle standard commercial claims, debt recovery, breach of contract disputes (unless specific subject-matter jurisdiction applies elsewhere), and employment matters.
• Geographic Note: In the capital city, these courts are district-specific (e.g., District Court for Prague 1, District Court for Prague 2).
• Composition: Cases are usually heard by a single judge. In specific labor or criminal cases, a panel (senate) may sit.

2. Regional Courts (Krajské soudy):

• Dual Role: The Regional Courts play a pivotal dual role. They act as appellate courts for decisions made by District Courts. However, crucially for Luxembourg investors, they also serve as courts of first instance for specialized and complex matters.
• Specialized First-Instance Agenda: Regional Courts have original jurisdiction over disputes involving:
  • Intellectual property and copyright claims.
  • Unfair competition.
  • Disputes concerning the existence of companies, shareholder disputes, and corporate governance.
  • Mergers and acquisitions disputes.
  • Matters related to the Commercial Register.

• Prague Specifics: The Regional Court for the capital is named the Municipal Court in Prague (Městský soud v Praze). It is the powerhouse of Czech commercial litigation, handling the bulk of major corporate disputes in the country.
• Composition: Appellate panels usually consist of three judges. First-instance cases are typically heard by a single judge, though complex commercial matters may involve a panel.

3. High Courts (Vrchní soudy):

• Location: There are only two High Courts in the country: one in Prague (covering Bohemia) and one in Olomouc (covering Moravia and Silesia).
• Function: They serve exclusively as appellate courts for cases heard in the first instance by Regional Courts. They do not hear new trials but review the application of law and procedure. They are the final factual reviewers for major commercial disputes.

4. Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud):

• Location: Brno.
• Function: The court of last resort for civil and criminal matters. It hears "extraordinary appeals" (dovolání) aimed at unifying judicial interpretation.
• Significance: An appeal to the Supreme Court is not an automatic right. It is admissible only if the case addresses a question of law that has not been resolved, is being decided differently by lower courts, or represents a departure from established case law. Representation by a lawyer is mandatory for this stage.

Court Hierarchy and Competence for Commercial Disputes

Court Tier	Role in Commercial Disputes	Geographic Scope	Key Implications for Luxembourg Clients
District Court (Okresní soud)	General debt recovery, breach of contract (< CZK 100k usually), employment disputes.	Local District (e.g., Prague 1, Brno-City)	Most routine B2B supply chain claims start here. Speed varies by district.
Regional Court (Krajský soud)	Appeals from District Courts; 1st Instance for IP, Corporate, Unfair Competition, M&A.	Regional (e.g., Municipal Court in Prague)	The primary venue for complex corporate disputes. Judges are more specialized in business law.
High Court (Vrchní soud)	Appeals from Regional Court (1st instance decisions).	Prague (Bohemia) / Olomouc (Moravia)	Final factual review for major cases. Decisions here are highly authoritative.
Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud)	Extraordinary appeals on points of law.	National (Seat in Brno)	Only for setting legal precedents. Not a venue for re-litigating facts.

Administrative Justice

It is vital for Luxembourg businesses to distinguish the general courts from the Administrative Courts. If a dispute arises not with a commercial partner but with a Czech state authority—for example, a challenge against a tax assessment by the Financial Administration or a fine imposed by the Office for the Protection of Competition—the venue is the Administrative Judiciary.

• Regional Courts (Administrative Chambers): These specialized chambers hear suits against decisions of administrative authorities.
• Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud): Located in Brno, it hears cassation complaints against Regional Court administrative decisions.

Filing a commercial claim in an administrative court, or vice versa, will result in the rejection of the claim or a lengthy transfer process, during which statutory limitation periods may expire. ARROWS ensures precise jurisdictional targeting to prevent such procedural fatalities.

The Digital Iron Curtain: The "Data Box" Trap

Perhaps the most distinct—and dangerous—feature of the Czech legal system for foreign entities is the Data Box (datová schránka). This is a state-mandated electronic communication system used for the delivery of official documents between the state (courts, tax authorities) and legal entities.

Mandatory Nature for Foreign Entities

Historically, Data Boxes were mandatory primarily for Czech entities. However, recent legislative changes have expanded this net.

• VAT Registration: As of 2023 and reinforced by 2025 amendments, foreign entities that are registered for VAT in the Czech Republic are mandatorily assigned a Data Box.
• Czech Branches: Any foreign company with a registered branch (odštěpný závod) in the Czech Commercial Register must have a Data Box.

The Fiction of Delivery (Fikce doručení)

The Data Box system operates on a ruthless legal principle known as the "fiction of delivery."

1. Standard Delivery: If a document (e.g., a lawsuit, a payment order, a judgment) is delivered to a Data Box, it is deemed delivered the moment an authorized person logs into the system.

2. The 10-Day Rule: If the user does not log in, the document is deemed delivered on the 10th day following its arrival in the box, regardless of whether it was ever opened, read, or downloaded.

The Consequence:

Imagine a Luxembourg company has a Czech VAT number. A Czech supplier files a lawsuit for a disputed €50,000 invoice. The court issues an Electronic Payment Order and sends it to the Luxembourg company's Data Box.

• The Luxembourg finance team, unaware of the Data Box or having lost the login credentials, does not check it.
• Day 10: The Payment Order is deemed delivered.
• Day 25: The 15-day statutory period to file an opposition expires.
• Result: The Payment Order becomes final and enforceable. The Czech supplier can now send a bailiff to seize the Luxembourg company's Czech assets. The Luxembourg company has lost the case by default, without ever knowing it was sued.

The Data Box Trap

Scenario	Action	Consequence	Mitigation Strategy
VAT Registration	Foreign entity registers for VAT in CZ.	Mandatory Data Box assignment.	Appoint ARROWS to monitor the box daily.
Ignored Message	10 days pass without login.	Deemed Delivery applies automatically.	Set up email alerts; ensure redundancy in access credentials.
Missed Deadline	15-day objection period expires.	Default Judgment; loss of case.	Immediate legal response upon receipt.
Technical Failure	Lost password or access key.	No excuse; deadlines still apply.	Maintain secure credential storage; authorized delegate access.

For Luxembourg businesses, the Data Box is not merely an administrative tool; it is a critical vulnerability point. ARROWS provides comprehensive Data Box management services, ensuring that no procedural deadline is ever missed due to electronic oversight.

Procedural Prerequisites: The Section 142a Trap

Before a lawsuit is even drafted, a critical procedural step must be taken. This step is unique to the Czech system and creates a significant pitfall for foreign plaintiffs accustomed to jurisdictions where a simple demand letter suffices.

The Mandatory Pre-Litigation Call (Předžalobní výzva)

Section 142a of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that a plaintiff who intends to claim reimbursement of legal costs must send a "pre-litigation call for payment" (předžalobní výzva) to the defendant.

• Timing: The notice must be sent to the defendant's last known address (or Data Box) at least 7 days before the lawsuit is filed.
• Content: It must clearly identify the debt, the legal basis, the amount owed, and explicitly warn that if payment is not made, the creditor will enforce the claim in court and seek cost reimbursement.

The "Loser Pays" Exception

The Czech system operates on the "loser pays" principle: the unsuccessful party pays the successful party's costs. However, Section 142a creates a devastating exception.

• The Scenario: A Luxembourg company sues a Czech debtor for €100,000 and wins. The legal costs (calculated by tariff) are €10,000.
• The Error: The Luxembourg company did not send a compliant Section 142a notice, or sent it only 3 days before filing.
• The Ruling: The court orders the debtor to pay the €100,000 debt. However, the court denies the Luxembourg company's request for legal fees.
• The Cost: The Luxembourg company must pay its own €10,000 legal bill. If the defendant acknowledged the debt immediately after the lawsuit was filed, the court might even order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs for "unnecessary litigation".

For commercial claims, where legal fees can be substantial, losing the entitlement to cost reimbursement due to a clerical error effectively penalizes the winner. ARROWS drafts these notices to ensure they meet all statutory requirements, serving as the first line of offense in the recovery strategy.

Instruments of Speed: Payment Orders and Summary Proceedings

For undisputed debts, the Czech system offers expedited procedures that avoid the time and expense of a full trial. These are the primary tools for B2B debt recovery.

The Electronic Order for Payment (Elektronický platební rozkaz - EPR)

This is the most common method for domestic debt recovery.

• Cap: Previously capped, the limit was raised to CZK 1,000,000, and recent amendments have removed the cap entirely for certain electronic filings, making it applicable to larger commercial debts.
• Speed: If the evidence is clear (unpaid invoices, delivery notes), the court issues the order often within weeks, without a hearing.
• Process: Filed electronically using a specialized form.
• Defense: The debtor has 15 days from delivery to file a simple opposition (odpor). They do not need to substantiate their defense at this stage; a simple "I object" suffices.
• Effect: If an opposition is filed, the Payment Order is cancelled in its entirety, and the case proceeds to standard litigation. If no opposition is filed, the order becomes final and enforceable, having the same weight as a judgment.

The European Payment Order (EPO)

For Luxembourg businesses, the European Payment Order (established by Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006) is a powerful alternative.

• Usage: Ideal for cross-border undisputed claims within the EU (except Denmark).
• Mechanism: The creditor fills out standard Form A.
• Timeline: The court typically issues the order within 30 days.
• Defense: The debtor has 30 days to lodge a statement of opposition.
• Advantage: It is automatically enforceable across the EU without the need for exequatur proceedings.
• Disadvantage: Like the Czech EPR, a simple opposition kills the order and converts the case into standard civil proceedings.

Strategic Choice:

• Use the Czech Electronic Payment Order if the debtor is a local Czech entity and you want to leverage the shorter 15-day objection period. The speed and local nature of the order often shock local debtors into payment or negotiation.
• Use the European Payment Order if you prefer a standardized EU process or if you anticipate enforcement might be needed in multiple EU jurisdictions.

The Notarial Deed with Direct Enforceability (Notářský zápis)

This is the "nuclear option" for debt security. It is not a court process but a preventive legal instrument.

• Mechanism: The debtor signs a deed before a notary acknowledging the debt and explicitly consenting to direct enforceability (svolení k vykonatelnosti).
• Benefit: If the debtor defaults, the creditor skips the entire court process. You do not file a lawsuit. You do not pay the 5% court fee. You take the deed directly to a bailiff and begin seizing assets.
• Timeline: Reduces the recovery timeline from 18 months to a few weeks.
• Use Case: Ideal for settlement agreements, restructuring repayment plans, or securing high-value loans. ARROWS strongly recommends this for any negotiated settlement with a Czech counterparty.

The Economics of Litigation: Costs, Fees, and ROI

Litigation is an investment. For Luxembourg businesses, calculating the Return on Investment (ROI) is crucial. The Czech system has specific fiscal rules that must be modeled before filing.

Court Fees (Soudní poplatky)

The plaintiff must pay a court fee upon filing the lawsuit. This fee serves as a barrier to frivolous litigation and is generally recoverable if the plaintiff wins.

• Up to CZK 20,000: Flat fee of CZK 1,000.
• CZK 20,000 to CZK 40,000,000: 5% of the claimed amount.
• Over CZK 40,000,000: Base fee of CZK 2,000,000 plus 1% of the amount exceeding 40 million.
• Cap: The fee is capped at a calculation base of CZK 250,000,000 (meaning the maximum fee for very large claims plateaus).

Example: For a commercial claim of €1,000,000 (approx. CZK 25,000,000), the court fee is 5%, which equals CZK 1,250,000 (approx. €50,000). This amount must be paid upfront to the court account.

The "Loser Pays" Principle and the Advocate's Tariff

The Czech system follows the "loser pays" rule, but with a critical caveat that often surprises foreign investors: the reimbursement of legal fees is not based on the actual amount paid to the lawyer. Instead, it is calculated based on a statutory regulation known as the Advocate's Tariff (Decree No. 177/1996 Coll.).

• Tariff Value: The fee is calculated based on the "tariff value" (tarifní hodnota) of the dispute.
• The Gap: If you pay your international lawyer €300/hour, but the tariff calculates the recoverable fee for that specific act as equivalent to €150,000 lump sum, you will only be reimbursed the tariff amount. The difference is a sunk cost.

Recoverable vs. Actual Costs (Illustrative Model)

Dispute Value (CZK)	Tariff Fee per Act (approx.)	Typical Commercial Fee (Hourly/Flat)	Shortfall (per act)
200,000	~ 9,100	~ 15,000	- 5,900
1,000,000	~ 14,000	~ 25,000	- 11,000
10,000,000	~ 48,300	~ 80,000	- 31,700
100,000,000	~ 85,000	~ 150,000	- 65,000

Note: These figures are illustrative estimates. A "legal act" (úkon právní služby) typically includes taking over representation, drafting the claim, attending a hearing, or filing an appeal. A standard case might involve 3 to 10 acts.

Strategic Insight: For high-value disputes, the tariff often under-compensates the winner for their actual legal spend. ARROWS works with clients to structure fee agreements that align incentives, offering transparent budgeting so that the "unrecoverable gap" is known and managed from the outset.

Security for Costs

While generally EU plaintiffs are exempt from posting security for costs, in certain specific circumstances or if the plaintiff is a non-EU entity (e.g., a Luxembourg SPV held by a non-EU parent in a complex structure might face scrutiny), the defendant may request the court to order the plaintiff to post security for procedural costs. However, under EU principles of non-discrimination, a genuine Luxembourg entity is typically shielded from this requirement.

Evidence and the Burden of Proof

Litigation in the Czech Republic is a written, document-heavy process. The burden of allegation (břemeno tvrzení) and the burden of proof (břemeno důkazní) are strictly enforced.

Substantiation Requirement

It is insufficient to simply state in the lawsuit, "The defendant owes us money for services rendered." The Statement of Claim (Žaloba) must explicitly detail:

• The legal basis of the relationship (contract, order).
• The specific performance delivered (delivery notes, acceptance protocols, timesheets).
• The billing and delivery of invoices.
• The breach of the obligation to pay.

Discovery: Unlike US or UK jurisdictions, there is no broad "discovery" process where you can force the other side to open their files to find evidence for your case. You must have the evidence in hand before you sue. This makes pre-litigation due diligence—conducted by ARROWS—absolutely critical. We assess the evidentiary strength of your claim before you incur court fees.

The Language Barrier and Translations

• Official Language: All court proceedings are conducted in Czech.
• Evidence: Contracts, emails, and invoices in English, French, or German are generally not admissible as evidence unless accompanied by a certified translation (soudní překlad).
• Cost Implication: The cost of translating hundreds of pages of technical documentation must be factored into the litigation budget. ARROWS manages this process, ensuring that the nuance of complex financial instruments or technical specifications is not lost in translation.

Beyond the Courtroom: Enforcement and Insolvency

Obtaining a judgment is only the midpoint of recovery. Converting that paper judgment into cash requires navigating the enforcement and insolvency systems.

The Judicial Bailiff (Soudní exekutor)

Once a judgment is final and enforceable (vykonatelný), enforcement is not automatic. The creditor must file a motion to initiate execution proceedings.

• Private Bailiffs: Enforcement is handled by private Judicial Bailiffs (Soudní exekutoři) who are state-authorized but operate as private entrepreneurs. They are incentivized by statutory fees recovered from the debtor.
• Powers: Czech bailiffs have broad powers. They can:
  • Freeze and seize bank accounts immediately.
  • Garnish wages and receivables.
  • Seize and sell movable property (vehicles, equipment).
  • Seize and auction real estate.
  • Suspend the driver's license of the debtor (if an individual).

• Strategy: Choosing an aggressive and effective bailiff is a strategic decision. ARROWS cooperates with top-tier bailiffs known for their speed and recovery rates.

The Insolvency Trap

A common defense tactic for distressed debtors is to file for insolvency. This halts all individual enforcement actions.

• The Trap: Once the court declares bankruptcy (úpadek), creditors must file their claims (přihláška pohledávky) within a strict deadline.
• The Deadline: This deadline is set by the court, typically 2 months from the bankruptcy decision. It is a preclusive deadline. If you miss it, your claim is extinguished, and you will recover zero.
• Monitoring: For Luxembourg creditors, monitoring the Czech Insolvency Register (Insolvenční rejstřík) is impossible to do manually on a daily basis. ARROWS provides automated monitoring services to ensure that if a debtor files for bankruptcy, we file the proof of claim immediately.

New Frontiers: Class Actions and ESG

The Class Action Act of 2024

As of July 2024, the Czech Republic has implemented a new Act on Civil Class Proceedings (Zákon o hromadných občanských řízeních), transposing EU Directive 2020/1828.

• Scope: While primarily designed for consumers, it allows "micro-enterprises" (fewer than 10 employees, turnover < CZK 50M) to join class actions.
• Mechanism: An accredited non-profit organization must act as the plaintiff.
• Relevance: If a Luxembourg SME is one of many victims of a systemic breach by a large Czech corporation (e.g., a telecommunications provider or utility company), this new mechanism offers a way to pursue claims without bearing the individual cost of litigation.

ESG and Supply Chain Liability

With the implementation of the CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive), large Czech companies are under increasing scrutiny regarding their supply chains. Luxembourg investors can leverage ESG compliance failures as leverage in disputes. If a Czech partner is violating environmental or labor standards, this not only creates legal liability but also reputational leverage that can force a settlement.

Conclusion and Action Plan

The Czech Republic offers a robust legal system for the enforcement of commercial rights, provided one navigates the formalism with precision. For Luxembourg businesses, the path to recovery involves distinct steps:

1. Jurisdictional Check: Confirm the Czech courts are the correct forum under Brussels I bis.

2. Data Box Management: Ensure you have access to your Czech Data Box to avoid default judgments.

3. Section 142a Compliance: Send the mandatory pre-litigation call 7 days before filing.

4. Evidence Audit: Gather all certified translations of contracts and invoices before filing.

5. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Calculate the court fees (5%) and the recoverable tariff fees to set a realistic budget.

Why ARROWS?

ARROWS provides the security of a large firm with the agility of a specialized litigation team. We understand the intersection of Luxembourg's financial sophistication and Czech procedural reality.

Don't let procedural traps compromise your commercial claims.

Contact us today at office@arws.cz for a preliminary assessment of your claim and a strategy that secures your assets in the heart of Europe.

FAQ: Questions Luxembourg Clients Ask ARROWS

1. Can I use my Luxembourg lawyer to represent me in Czech court?

Generally, no. While EU lawyers can provide temporary services, representing a client in Czech court proceedings usually requires a Czech-qualified attorney (advokát) or a "host" lawyer working in conjunction with a local one. The procedural nuances and the requirement for proceedings to be in Czech make local representation essential. Get tailored legal solutions by writing to office@arws.cz.

2. How long does a commercial lawsuit take?

A first-instance decision typically takes 12 to 18 months. Complex cases in Prague can take longer. Appeals add another year. This is why we prioritize Payment Orders and Notarial Deeds to expedite recovery.

3. What if the debtor goes bankrupt during the trial?

The lawsuit is interrupted. You must file a Proof of Claim (Přihláška pohledávky) in the insolvency proceeding. The deadline is strict (usually 2 months from the bankruptcy decision). If you miss it, your claim is extinguished. Our lawyers are ready to assist you – email us at office@arws.cz. 

4. Is mediation mandatory?

No, mediation is generally voluntary in commercial disputes. However, a judge can order a mandatory 3-hour initial meeting with a mediator if they believe a settlement is possible. You must attend this meeting, but you are not obliged to reach a settlement.

5. Can I get an injunction to freeze assets before the trial?

Yes, a Preliminary Injunction (Předběžné opatření) is possible if you can prove a risk that the enforcement of the judgment would be jeopardized (e.g., the debtor is selling off assets). You must usually post a security deposit (CZK 10,000 - 50,000). Minimize your costs by contacting office@arws.cz.

6. Does the "Loser Pays" rule apply to the Financial Arbitrator?

No. If you are a financial institution involved in a dispute before the Financial Arbitrator (e.g., consumer credit or payment services), each party bears its own costs. You cannot recover legal fees from the consumer, even if you win.

7. What is the risk of the "Italian Torpedo"?

Historically, a debtor might sue for a "negative declaration" in a slow jurisdiction (like Italy) to block proceedings in the Czech Republic. The Brussels I bis Regulation has largely mitigated this by giving priority to the court designated in a valid exclusive jurisdiction clause, regardless of who filed first. However, if no such clause exists, the "first to file" rule still generally applies, making speed essential.

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.