How to Enforce Outstanding Debts in the Czech Republic:

Why the 'Easy' EU Options fail, and how to navigate Czech-Specific traps to secure your payments. 

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.

Section 1: The Danish-Czech commercial disconnect: A new landscape of risk

The expanding trade relationship between Denmark and the Czech Republic has created significant opportunities for Danish corporations. 

However, this growth in cross-border commerce also brings an inevitable increase in payment disputes and outstanding receivables. 

When a Czech-based partner fails to pay, Danish executives and investors often discover that their familiar debt collection processes are not just ineffective, but that the Czech legal system operates on a set of procedural rules that are unique, rigid, and fraught with non-obvious financial risks.

Danish businesses are accustomed to a domestic collection process, often involving the fogedret (bailiff's court), which consolidates certain functions and follows a well-understood path.

This can be contrasted with the Czech system, which is highly segmented into distinct pre-litigation, judicial, and enforcement phases, each with its own set of procedural "gates."

The core thesis for Danish creditors must be this: successful debt recovery in the Czech Republic is not a matter of aggressive tactics or informal negotiation. It is a game of absolute procedural precision. 

This precision is paramount because, as this guide will detail, the common European Union (EU) "shortcuts" that Danish businesses might expect to use are, in fact, not available to them.

While many law firms claim success in the "amicable" collection phase, with some reporting that up to 95% of cases are resolved without court intervention, this statistic can be misleading.

A Danish creditor, accustomed to the standard inkassovarsel (collection notice) in their home country, might treat the Czech pre-litigation phase as a similar formality. 

This is a high-risk assumption. In the Czech Republic, a minor procedural error in this "amicable" stage can result in the complete forfeiture of the right to recover legal costs, even if the case is won. 

This guide provides a strategic, client-focused roadmap to navigate these critical differences and protect your financial interests in the Czech market.

Section 2: Phase 1: The strategic pre-litigation approach

Subsection 2.1: The Value of a professional amicable phase

Before any judicial action is taken, a structured, out-of-court (extrajudicial) approach is, in almost all cases, the most cost-effective and fastest path to payment.

This phase is not merely about sending an email reminder; it is a formal strategic step executed by local legal experts.

An effective amicable phase leverages a deep understanding of local business culture and payment behaviors.

It involves customized demand letters and direct contact in the Czech language. 

The high success rate of this phase (sometimes cited as high as 95%) is not because debtors are cooperative, but because the communication comes from a local law firm that credibly demonstrates its readiness and capability to immediately escalate the matter to the Czech courts.

This combination of local knowledge and a credible legal threat is often sufficient to bring a non-responsive debtor to the negotiating table.

Subsection 2.2: The critical first mistake: Failing the mandatory 'Předžalobní výzva'

This is the single most important procedural trap for foreign creditors and the most common reason for a "win-but-lose" scenario in Czech litigation.

Under § 142a of the Czech Code of Civil Procedure, a creditor is legally required to send a specific, formal "pre-action letter," known as a předžalobní výzva, to the debtor before filing a claim in court.

This is not a mere suggestion; it is a mandatory prerequisite for the recovery of legal costs.

To be legally compliant, this letter must:

1. Be sent to the debtor at least seven days before the lawsuit is filed.
2. Clearly identify the creditor and the debtor.
3. Clearly state the legal basis of the claim (e.g., "unpaid invoice No. 123 from contract X").
4. Specify the precise amount owed, including principal, any default interest, and other costs.
5. Provide a clear deadline and payment instructions.

The financial consequence of failure is severe and absolute.

If a creditor fails to send this letter, sends it fewer than seven days before filing, or sends a letter that is not fully legally compliant, the creditor shall not be eligible for reimbursement of their legal and court costs from the debtor, even if they win the lawsuit 100% on its merits.

This creates a scenario where a Danish creditor can "win" their case but still suffer a significant financial loss. 

For example, a creditor may sue to recover a EUR 100,000 debt. The court agrees the debt is valid and grants the EUR 100,000. However, the creditor's legal and court fees for the dispute might be EUR 9,000.

Because the předžalobní výzva was not correctly sent, the court, while granting the principal, will deny the creditor's claim for their EUR 9,000 in costs.

The creditor "won" but has effectively lost 9% of their recovery to an avoidable procedural error. This transforms the pre-action letter from a simple administrative step into the absolute cornerstone of the case's financial viability.

Section 3: Phase 2: The Czech judicial fast-track (Your primary tool)

Subsection 3.1: The 'Platební rozkaz' (order for payment)

For Danish creditors, whose EU-level options are limited (as detailed in Section 4), the primary judicial tool will be the Czech domestic "Order for Payment" procedure, or platební rozkaz.

This is the most effective and common fast-track judicial process for undisputed monetary claims in the Czech Republic.

The process is an accelerated, written procedure. The creditor, through their legal counsel, files a formal application with the competent district court.

The crucial point is that the court makes its decision solely on the facts and documentary evidence provided. There is no oral hearing at this stage.

This places an extremely high burden on the quality of the initial application. The creditor must provide a "solid foundation" of clear, documentary evidence.

This includes:

• Signed contracts or purchase orders.
• Issued invoices.
• Confirmed delivery notes or acceptance protocols.
• Any correspondence from the debtor acknowledging the debt (e.g., emails promising payment, proposals for installment plans).

If the judge reviews the evidence and finds the claim to be well-founded, the court will issue the platební rozkaz and have it formally served on the debtor. From the moment the debtor receives this order, a strict 15-day window opens. 

The debtor has only two options: pay the full amount (plus specified costs and interest) or file a formal objection.

Subsection 3.2: The Debtor's counter-move: The 'Odpor' (Objection)

If the debtor wishes to contest the claim, they can file an odpor, which is a formal, written objection against the platební rozkaz.

There are two critical rules regarding the odpor that all Danish creditors must understand:

1. No Justification is Required: The debtor does not need to provide any reason, justification, or evidence for filing the odpor. They must simply file the one-page form.

2. Automatic Cancellation: The moment a valid odpor is filed within the 15-day limit, the platební rozkaz is automatically cancelled by the court.

The consequence is immediate. The case is automatically converted from a fast-track, written procedure into a standard, full civil lawsuit.

This standard process is significantly slower, more expensive, and will require oral hearings, the submission of further evidence, and potentially the testimony of witnesses.

This dynamic means the odpor is often used by debtors not as a legitimate defense, but as a strategic delay tactic.

Receiving an odpor does not mean the creditor's case is weak. It simply means the "fast-track" has been successfully derailed by the debtor, and the creditor must now be prepared for the "standard-track." 

This is a critical juncture where an experienced local legal team is essential to advise on the cost-benefit of proceeding with full litigation versus seeking a settlement.

Section 4: An Expert alert for Danish creditors: The European payment order (EOP) trap

This is the single most important, audience-specific piece of advice for any Danish business seeking to recover funds from a Czech partner.

Subsection 4.1: What you think you can use: The European payment order (EOP)

Many sophisticated European businesses are aware of the European Payment Order (EOP), a simplified, EU-wide procedure established by Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006.

For the creditors who can use it, the EOP is a powerful tool.

Its advantages are clear:

• Speed: A court is generally expected to issue the EOP within 30 days of the application.
• Simplicity: The creditor files a standard, multi-lingual "Form A".
• Cost: It is designed to be a low-cost, written-only procedure.
• Enforceability: An unobjected EOP is automatically recognized and enforceable in all other EU member states without any need for a separate declaration of enforceability (a process known as exequatur).

A German or Estonian company, for example, can use this EOP process to file a claim against a Czech debtor efficiently.

Subsection 4.2: The Critical exception: Why this fails for Denmark

The European Payment Order procedure is available in all EU member states except Denmark.

Due to Denmark's opt-out from certain EU justice and home affairs measures, Danish businesses cannot initiate an EOP application against a Czech debtor. 

Likewise, a Czech creditor cannot use the EOP against a Danish debtor.

This opt-out fundamentally changes the entire debt collection strategy for Danish businesses.

 While a German or Estonian creditor has two fast-track options (the domestic platební rozkaz or the EU-level EOP), the Danish creditor has only one: the Czech domestic platební rozkaz.

This lack of an EU-level "safety net" or alternative path significantly raises the stakes. Any procedural error in the domestic Czech application—such as failing to provide sufficient evidence  or mismanaging the pre-action letter —is catastrophic, as there is no simple backup procedure. 

This makes specialized, local Czech legal counsel, who are masters of the platební rozkaz procedure, an absolute necessity, not a luxury, for Danish creditors.

Section 5: The Unforgiving deadline: The 'Promlčení' (Statute of limitations)

Time is a critical, and often weaponized, factor in Czech debt collection. A valid, undisputed claim can be rendered permanently uncollectible by a failure to act within the statutory time limit.

The Czech legal concept for the statute of limitations is promlčení (limitation).

• The Rule: For B2B commercial claims, such as unpaid invoices, the limitation period (promlčecí lhůta) is three years (Transportation agreements may have a shorter, one-year limit)..
• The Clock: This three-year clock starts running from the due date of the invoice (i.e., the date the claim first became "due and payable").

After three years, the claim is not automatically extinguished, but it transforms into a "natural bond". This means the debt still exists, but it becomes legally unenforceable if the debtor chooses to object.

This is how the trap works in practice:

1. A creditor files a lawsuit to recover a four-year-old debt. The court will not dismiss the case automatically.

2. The debtor, however, simply needs to file a formal "limitation objection" (námitka promlčení) with the court.

3. Once the debtor raises this valid objection, the court is forced to dismiss the creditor's claim.The creditor loses, and may even be liable for the debtor's legal costs.

Crucially, informal actions do not stop the clock.

Sending payment reminders, demand letters, or engaging in negotiations does not interrupt the limitation period. 

The only two ways to stop the clock are a formal, written acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor or, most definitively, initiating legal proceedings by filing the lawsuit.

This creates a significant risk. A savvy Czech debtor may deliberately "string along" a foreign creditor with promises of payment or small, token partial payments, all in an effort to delay legal action until the three-year deadline has passed. 

Danish businesses must be wary of these "slow-play" tactics. Delay is a primary defense, and the three-year deadline is a hard cutoff for filing a lawsuit.

Section 6: Phase 3: Enforcement – Turning your Czech judgment into cash

Obtaining a judgment is only half the battle; the final phase is turning that legal title into cash. This phase again highlights the unique, asymmetric legal relationship between Denmark and the Czech Republic.

Subsection 6.1: Enforcement within the Czech Republic: The 'Exekuce' process

Once a creditor has an "enforceable title" (exekuční titul)—which is what a final, unobjected platební rozkaz  or a final court judgment becomes—the forced enforcement process, or exekuce, can begin.

In the Czech Republic, the creditor does not enforce the judgment themselves.

Instead, they file an enforcement proposal, and the court authorizes a licensed judicial bailiff, known as an exekutor.

The exekutor has broad and powerful tools for forced recovery. Upon commencement of the exekuce, the bailiff can, and will:

• Seize Bank Accounts: Freeze and seize all funds in the debtor's bank accounts, including business and self-employment accounts.
• Garnish Wages: Garnish the debtor's salary or other forms of income.
• Seize Movable Property: Seize and auction movable assets, such as vehicles, machinery, or office equipment.
• Attach Real Estate: Place a lien on the debtor's real property, which can ultimately be sold at auction to satisfy the debt.

This powerful system provides the "teeth" that back up a Czech court judgment.

Subsection 6.2: A tale of two systems: Enforcing judgments between CZ and DK

While Danish creditors are excluded from the EOP filing procedure, they are included in the EU's streamlined enforcement regime. 

This is the "good news" that balances the difficulties described in Section 4.

The 2005 Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark (on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments) effectively brings Denmark into the framework of the Brussels I bis Regulation (EU 1215/2012).

The practical payoff of this agreement is enormous: a final judgment issued by a Czech court is automatically recognized and enforceable in Denmark without any special intermediate proceedings or a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).

The process is purely administrative:

1. Legal counsel obtains the final judgment from the Czech court.
2. Counsel requests the Czech court to issue a standard EU form, the "Annex I certificate," which confirms the judgment is final and enforceable.
3. The judgment and the certificate are then presented to the appropriate enforcement authority in Denmark (the fogedret) to begin enforcement against the debtor's assets in Denmark.

This system is fully reciprocal. 

A final judgment from a Danish court is similarly enforceable in the Czech Republic against a debtor's Czech assets, bypassing the need for exequatur. 

This creates a highly nuanced legal corridor: filing new claims is nationally segmented, but enforcing final judgments is streamlined at the EU level.

The ARROWS CZ-DK Cross-Border tool kit

This table summarizes the asymmetric legal relationship—the "trap" and the "solution"—for Danish businesses.

Scenario	EU-Level Procedure	Recommended Strategy & Legal Basis
Action 1: Danish Co. Filing New Claim vs. CZ Debtor	European Payment Order (EOP): Unavailable. (Denmark opt-out per Reg. 1896/2006).	Primary Strategy: Must use the Czech domestic 'Platební rozkaz' (Payment Order) procedure. This is the only effective fast-track.
Action 2: Danish Co. Enforcing Existing CZ Judgment in Denmark	N/A	Streamlined & Simple. The judgment is automatically recognized under the Brussels I bis Regulation (1215/2012) via the 2005 EU-DK Agreement. No exequatur needed..
Action 3: Danish Co. Enforcing Existing DK Judgment in Czechia	N/A	Streamlined & Simple. The judgment is automatically recognized under the same Brussels I bis Regulation framework.

Section 7: The hidden digital trap: The 'Datová schránka' (Data box)

Perhaps the single greatest unseen risk for Danish investors and directors involved with a Czech entity is the datová schránka, or "Data Box."

A Data Box is not an email account. It is a mandatory, official, state-run electronic mailbox system.

• Who Must Have One? All legal entities registered in the Czech Republic (e.g., an s.r.o. subsidiary), all self-employed persons (OSVČ), and, critically, all directors (jednatelé) of those legal entities, even if they are foreign nationals residing in Denmark.
• Its Function: It is the exclusive channel for all official communication from Czech state authorities. This includes the tax office, the trade register, and, most importantly, the courts.

The trap is a legal mechanism known as the "fiction of delivery."

A document (such as a platební rozkaz or a court summons) sent to a company's or a director's Data Box is legally considered "delivered" 10 days after it arrives in the inbox.

This is true even if the recipient never logs in, never opens the message, and does not even know the Data Box exists.

This creates a catastrophic "default judgment" scenario.

1. A Danish individual is the director (jednatel) of a Czech s.r.o. A Data Box was automatically created for them by the state, and the login details were sent by post months ago.
2. A disgruntled party files a lawsuit and the court serves the platební rozkaz (with its 15-day response deadline) to this Data Box.
3. The Danish director, who manages the business from Copenhagen, never checks this box.
4. After 10 days, the law deems the platební rozkaz "delivered" (fiction of delivery).
5. The 15-day deadline to file an odpor begins to run without the director's knowledge.
6. On day 26, the platební rozkaz becomes a final, legally enforceable judgment. The director has lost the case by default.

This is not a legal risk; it is an operational one. 

Any Danish entity with a Czech nexus (a subsidiary, a directorship) must have a professional, reliable system for monitoring their Data Box daily. Failure to do so is an invitation for a default judgment.

Section 8: Your financial bottom line: Costs and recoverability

The central question for any creditor is the financial bottom line. The Czech system has two main categories of costs.

1. Court Fees: These are a percentage of the claimed amount. For a standard lawsuit, the fee is typically 5% of the claim (for claims over CZK 20,000). The fast-track electronic payment order has a lower fee of 4% (for claims over CZK 20,000).
2. Legal Fees: These are the costs for legal representation. For out-of-court collection, these may be contingency-based ("no-win-no-fee"). For court proceedings, they are typically based on the "Advocate's Tariff," a regulated fee schedule.

The key principle of Czech litigation is that the winning party is, as a rule, entitled to have its reasonable court costs and legal fees paid by the defeated party.

This brings the entire process full circle. 

This right to cost recovery, which makes the creditor "whole," is not automatic. It is contingent on perfect procedural compliance. As established in Section 2, the most common reason a successful creditor is denied their cost recovery is the failure to send the mandatory předžalobní výzva before the lawsuit was filed.

Therefore, the first step taken by legal counsel—before a case is ever filed—is the single most important action for protecting the client's ultimate financial recovery.

Section 9: Conclusion: Your Strategic Partner in Prague

Recovering commercial debt in the Czech Republic presents a unique and asymmetric landscape of risk for Danish businesses. The standard EU "shortcut," the European Payment Order, is unavailable.

This places all the pressure on the Czech domestic fast-track, the platební rozkaz.

Success in this environment is threatened by multiple, non-obvious traps:

• The three-year "hard deadline" of the promlčení (statute of limitations).
• The catastrophic "fiction of delivery" rule of the mandatory datová schránka (Data Box).
• The critical financial penalty for failing to send the předžalobní výzva (pre-action letter).

However, the Czech system also provides powerful solutions. The exekuce (enforcement) process provides the "teeth" to seize assets once a judgment is secured.

And thanks to the Brussels I bis Regulation framework, a final Czech judgment is seamlessly and automatically enforceable in Denmark, and vice-versa.

Navigating this complex, asymmetric landscape—knowing which EU rules are "off" and which are "on"—requires more than a generic international law firm. It demands a specialized local partner in Prague who possesses a deep, nuanced understanding of the specific legal corridor between Prague and Copenhagen.

Do not let a valid commercial claim become a financial loss due to a simple procedural error.

For an immediate assessment of your case and your legal options, contact the ARROWS international team.

Section 10: Appendix / quick-reference tables

Key Czech legal terms for Danish businesses

Czech Term	Translation	Why It Matters to You (The Business Implication)
Předžalobní výzva	Pre-Action Letter	This is a mandatory letter. If you (or your lawyer) fail to send this before suing, you will forfeit your right to recover your legal costs—even if you win the case.
Platební rozkaz	Payment Order	This is your primary judicial tool. A fast-track, evidence-based court judgment issued without a hearing. Its success depends entirely on the quality of your documents.
Odpor	Objection	This is the debtor's "veto." A simple, no-reason-required filing that instantly cancels the platební rozkaz and forces a full, slow, and more expensive lawsuit.
Promlčení	Limitation	This is the 3-year "hard deadline" for B2B claims (from the invoice due date). If you sue after this, the debtor can object, and the court must dismiss your case.
Exekuce	Enforcement	This is the "teeth." The powerful, bailiff-led (exekutor) process of seizing bank accounts, garnishing wages, and auctioning property after you have a final judgment.
Datová schránka	Data Box	A mandatory state e-mailbox. Court documents are legally "delivered" 10 days after arrival, even if you never log in. Not checking it is the fastest way to lose by default.

 

Czech 'Platební rozkaz' vs. Standard Civil litigation

Factor	'Platební rozkaz' (Fast-Track)	Standard Civil Litigation (if 'Odpor' is filed)
Procedure	Written-only, based solely on documentary evidence. No hearing.	Full oral proceedings, court hearings, presentation of witnesses, and extensive evidence.
Timeline	Can be issued in weeks or a few months.	Can take many months, or often several years, especially with appeals.
Court Fee (Claims > CZK 20k)	4% of the claimed amount.	5% of the claimed amount.
Debtor's Burden	Must pay or file a simple odpor within 15 days of delivery.	Can use multiple legal arguments, procedural delay tactics, and full appeals procedures.
Key Outcome	A fast, final, and immediately enforceable judgment.	A lengthy, costly, and resource-intensive process that requires strategic endurance.

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.