Czech Republic

The Czech legal system provides a dual-track framework for the enforcement of rights established by court judgments and other enforceable titles. A creditor seeking to enforce a decision in the Czech Republic must distinguish between two primary procedural regimes: judicial enforcement and enforcement by semi-private officials (executors).

Judicial enforcement v. executor enforcement

The first regime, judicial enforcement, is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 99/1963 Coll.). In this process, the enforcement is ordered and conducted directly by the court and its employees. While this remains a valid legal avenue, it is characterised by a significant procedural burden placed on the creditor. To succeed, the creditor must explicitly identify the specific asset of the debtor to be seized and the method of enforcement to be applied in their initial application. For example, the creditor must know the specific bank account number of the debtor or the specific location of movable property; such information is not publicly available. The court essentially acts only upon these specific instructions and generally does not undertake an independent investigation into the debtor’s asset capability. Consequently, this method is rarely used for commercial debt recovery today, though it remains relevant for specific family law matters or simple cases where the assets are known and fixed.

The second and predominant regime is executor enforcement, governed by the Execution Code (Act No. 120/2001 Coll.). This system utilises judicial executors, semi-private legal professionals whom the state has delegated the authority to enforce. Unlike court officials, executors function as proactive agents with extensive statutory powers to locate assets. Upon authorisation by the court, an executor can query national databases, banking institutions, and employers to identify seizable property. This regime is highly efficient because executors are remunerated based on the success of the recovery, creating a strong financial incentive to locate assets effectively. Furthermore, the commencement of executor proceedings triggers a “general inhibitorium”; a blanket freeze on the debtor’s estate that prohibits the disposal of assets beyond ordinary management needs. For most creditors, this regime is the standard recommendation due to its speed and the investigatory burden being shifted from the creditor to the executor. Therefore, this chapter also focuses primarily on executor enforcement.

Legislative developments

A significant amendment to the Execution Code, effective from January 1, 2022, streamlined the enforcement of foreign judgments. Previously, creditors outside the purview of EU regulations were required to obtain a separate declaratory judgment on recognition before filing for enforcement. Current legislation allows a creditor to file a motion for executor enforcement directly, together with the motion for recognition where such a motion is required. The court responsible for authorising the executor now simultaneously reviews the conditions for recognising a foreign judgment or award within the same proceeding, eliminating the need for a bifurcated process.

What are the main international treaties or conventions that apply?

The enforcement landscape is stratified by the origin of the judgment, with European Union legislation taking precedence, followed by multilateral conventions and bilateral treaties.

For judgments originating within the European Union, the primary instrument is Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis). This regulation abolished the exequatur proceeding for civil and commercial matters, meaning that a judgment given in one Member State is enforceable in the Czech Republic without any special declaration of enforceability, treating it effectively as a domestic title. For matters concerning matrimonial issues and parental responsibility, Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (Brussels II ter) applies. Additionally, specific simplified procedures exist under the European Enforcement Order (Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004) for uncontested claims or under Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure. Since July 2025, the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgments originating from the UK.

Outside the EU framework, the Czech Republic is a party to several key multilateral conventions. The most significant for commercial arbitration is the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. For court judgments, the Czech Republic is a party to the Hague Convention of 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements, and the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR).

Furthermore, the Czech Republic maintains a network of bilateral legal assistance treaties that facilitate recognition with specific non-EU nations. These treaties typically waive the reciprocity requirement for recognition and enforcement and standardise the documentation needed for enforcement. Notable treaty partners include countries such as Ukraine, Russia, Vietnam, Tunisia, and several former Soviet states.

What legal principles apply if there is no applicable international treaty or convention?

In the absence of a unifying international instrument, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are governed by the Act on Private International Law (Act No. 91/2012 Coll.). This national statute sets out the default rules for holding foreign decisions effective within the Czech territory.

The guiding principle of the Act on International Private Law is that foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters are recognised without a substantive review of the merits. The Czech court does not relitigate the case but limits its review to verification that specific procedural conditions are met. The primary condition is that the judgment must be final and enforceable in the state of origin.

For a foreign judgment to be recognised and enforced under the Act on Private International Law, the creditor must supply the original judgment (or a certified copy) alongside a certificate from the issuing authority confirming its finality and enforceability. These documents must be served with an official translation into the Czech language. Requirements for recognition and enforcement as well as key defences are contained in § 15 of the Act on International Private Law.

Jurisdictional requirements

The Czech court examines whether the foreign court had jurisdiction over the matter. Recognition will be denied if the subject matter falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Czech courts. Exclusive jurisdiction is claimed primarily in disputes involving rights in rem to immovable property located in the Czech Republic, the dissolution or nullity of Czech corporations, or the validity of entries in Czech public registers. Conversely, if the parties had validly agreed to the jurisdiction of the foreign court (prorogation) or if the defendant voluntarily submitted to the proceedings, the jurisdictional requirement is generally satisfied. For the purposes of recognition under the Act on International Private Law, the foreign court must have had jurisdiction that would be consistent with Czech rules of jurisdiction if the situation were reversed, that is if Czech rules were applied to the case.

Due process and service

A fundamental requirement for recognition is the observance of due process. The court will refuse enforcement if the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. This is scrutinised particularly closely in cases of default judgments. The creditor must demonstrate that the document instituting the proceedings was served on the defendant in a timely and proper manner, allowing them sufficient time to prepare a defence. The method of service must usually comply strictly with the law of the state of origin, and constructive service (e.g. via public notice) is often challenged successfully if it did not provide actual notice to the defendant.

Reciprocity

A critical prerequisite under the national regime is reciprocity. The Czech court must be satisfied that the state where the judgment originated would enforce a Czech judgment under similar circumstances. The Ministry of Justice may issue declarations confirming reciprocity with specific jurisdictions to facilitate this. However, the Act on International Private Law provides a significant exception: reciprocity is not required if the foreign judgment is not directed against a citizen of the Czech Republic or a Czech legal entity. This exception greatly liberalises enforcement against foreign debtors who hold assets in the Czech Republic.

Key defences

In addition to arguing the failure to meet any of the above requirements, the debtor may raise several specific obstacles to block recognition. The most prominent is the public policy (ordre public) defence. Recognition is refused if the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the Czech Republic. This defence is interpreted narrowly and is reserved for breaches of fundamental constitutional principles, such as egregious violations of procedural rights or judgments that impose punitive damages grossly disproportionate to the harm suffered.

Procedural defences include res judicata and lis pendens. A foreign judgment will not be recognised if a Czech court has already issued a final decision on the same legal matter between the same parties, or if a recognised judgment from a third state regarding the same matter already exists. Similarly, recognition is barred if proceedings involving the same parties and the same cause of action were pending before a Czech court prior to the commencement of the foreign proceedings.

Limitation periods

The limitation period for enforcing a judgment in the Czech Republic is 10 years. This period commences from the day the obligation imposed by the decision should have been fulfilled. The filing of a motion for enforcement suspends the running of this limitation period. If the creditor fails to initiate enforcement within this decade, the debtor may successfully raise the objection of limitation, rendering the judgment unenforceable.

Substantive defences during enforcement

Even after a judgment is recognised, the debtor may utilise specific defences under the Code of Civil Procedure to stop the actual enforcement process. These defences usually relate to facts that arose after the issuance of the judgment. Common grounds include the extinction of the debt through payment or set-off, the permanent loss of the asset to be seized, or the subsequent overturning of the underlying title in the country of origin. A general “catch all” defence follows from § 268(1)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure which allows the court to stop enforcement if there is “any other reason for which the decision cannot be enforced”.

The Czech Republic maintains a favourable environment for the enforcement of arbitral awards, primarily adhering to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958). As a contracting state, rights under foreign arbitral awards are enforced in the Czech Republic under the same procedural conditions as domestic court judgments — creditors who opt for executor enforcement have to file a motion for recognition of the award simultaneously with the enforcement motion.

In instances where the New York Convention or other bilateral treaties do not apply, the Act on Private International Law governs the recognition process. The guiding principle remains that a valid foreign arbitral award constitutes an enforceable title. Procedurally, the creditor must submit the original award and the original arbitration agreement, with translations where necessary.

Defences against enforcement

The grounds for refusing enforcement (§ 121 of the Act on International Private Law) mirror those found in Article V of the New York Convention. A debtor may challenge enforcement by proving that the arbitration agreement was invalid under the applicable law or that a party to the agreement was under some incapacity. Procedural irregularities are also valid grounds for refusal, specifically if the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present their case.

Further defences include situations where the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or if the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or the law of the country where the arbitration took place. Enforcement may also be denied if the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.

Apart from defences raised by the debtor, the Czech court must ex officio refuse enforcement if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Czech law (non-arbitrability). This generally applies to disputes involving the status of persons, family law matters, and certain consumer disputes. Additionally, enforcement is refused if it would be contrary to Czech public policy.

Jurisdiction for enforcement proceedings generally lies with the District Court (okresní soud) located in the district where the debtor has their permanent residence or registered seat. If the debtor is not resident in the Czech Republic, jurisdiction is determined by the location of their discoverable assets.

The cost structure depends on the chosen enforcement method. For judicial enforcement, the court fee is typically 5% of the amount to be enforced. In contrast, the executor enforcement regime is structurally different regarding upfront costs. There is generally no court fee payable by the creditor for filing the motion to authorise the executor. The costs of the execution, including the executor’s remuneration, are primarily borne by the debtor and recovered from the proceeds of the enforcement. However, creditors should be aware that if the debtor is completely indigent and executor enforcement is stopped due to a lack of assets, the court may order the creditor to pay a nominal amount to cover the executor’s minimum cash expenses. This is still much more favourable for creditors than paying 5% up front for judicial enforcement with little guarantee that enforcement will eventually be successful.

The speed of enforcement varies significantly by case type, asset liquidity, and debtor’s activity. The initial phase — obtaining the court’s authorisation for the executor — is relatively expeditious, typically taking two to six weeks from the filing of the motion. However, if the court identifies any obstacles, the process can be prolonged significantly with the requirement to file an appeal and possibly deal with challenges raised by the debtor in the appeal proceedings.

Once authorised, the executor can freeze bank accounts or real estate and other assets almost immediately. The actual monetisation of assets creates the variance in timing: seizing funds from a bank account may result in a transfer to the creditor within two to three months (accounting for notification periods and legal effects), whereas the sale of real estate or business shares via public auction can take 6–18 months.

Again, the debtor’s challenges that can be raised during enforcement, together with the three-instance court system that typically has to deal with such challenges, can prolong the whole process so that it lasts for many years.

The primary avenue for challenge occurs when the court issues the decision authorising the executor to conduct the enforcement and the decision to recognise the judgment or award, where applicable.

The debtor may file an appeal against the above decision(s) within 15 days of delivery. The grounds for such an appeal are generally limited to asserting that the legal requirements for recognition or enforcement were not met (see Questions 2 and 3, above).

The filing of an appeal has a suspensive effect. In practical terms, this means the executor can proceed with “arrestment” activities — such as locating assets, freezing bank accounts, or real estate — to secure the creditor’s position. However, the executor is prohibited from “monetisation” or the irreversible transfer of these assets (e.g. selling the property or paying out the cash from the frozen account) until the appellate court confirms the authorisation. This balance protects the creditor from asset dissipation while protecting the debtor from irreversible loss pending judicial review.

Additionally, at any point during the proceedings, the debtor may file a motion to stop enforcement under § 268 of the Civil Procedure Code if substantive grounds arise rendering enforcement inadmissible (e.g. the debt has been paid). While this motion does not automatically suspend enforcement, it is typically accompanied by a motion to defer enforcement, which the court may grant if the debtor shows they are in a temporary precarious social situation or if the stop motion is likely to succeed.

One of the decisive advantages of the Czech executor system is the transparency of asset data available to authorised executors compared to the opacity faced by ordinary litigants.

Publicly available information

Even prior to litigation, creditors can access several robust public registers. The Commercial Register (Obchodní rejstřík) provides details on corporate structures and the debtor’s participation in other entities. The Cadastre of Real Estate (Katastr nemovitostí) allows for a comprehensive search of land and buildings owned by the debtor. Crucially, the Central Register of Executions (Centrální evidence exekucí) entails a database of all ongoing enforcement proceedings, allowing a creditor to assess whether the debtor is already facing multiple claims before investing in enforcement. Finally, the Insolvency Register (Insolvenční rejstřík) allows creditors to identify insolvent debtors and register their claims in insolvency proceedings instead of investing in enforcement.

Executor’s investigative powers

Upon authorisation, the executor wields significant power under §§ 33 and 34 of the Execution Code to act as a “public detective”. The law imposes a mandatory duty on distinct classes of third parties to provide assistance to the executor free of charge and typically in electronic form.

Financial institutions, including banks and insurance companies, must disclose numbers of all accounts held by the debtor, their balances, and regarding insurance payouts. This overrides standard banking secrecy regulations. Similarly, employers are obligated to provide details on the debtor’s salary and employment contracts. State bodies, such as the tax administration and social security administration, must share data that helps locate the debtor or identify their income sources.

Sanctions for non-compliance

The duty to cooperate is enforced strictly. If a third party fails to provide the requested information, delays the provision, or provides false data, the executor or the court can impose a disciplinary fine of up to CZK 50,000 (approx. EUR 2,000). This fine can be imposed repeatedly until compliance is secured. Furthermore, if the failure to provide information causes damage to the creditor — for example, if the delay allows the debtor to move funds out of jurisdiction — the third party may be held liable for civil damages.

Once executor enforcement proceedings formally commence, a statutory “general inhibitorium” automatically applies. From the moment the debtor is served with the notice of enforcement, any legal act by the debtor intended to dispose of their assets (beyond ordinary management) is strictly prohibited and legally invalid. Since executors only have jurisdiction within the Czech Republic, the general inhibitorium can effectively only be enforced in the Czech Republic.

To prevent the dissipation of assets before a judgment or award is obtained, creditors can seek a preliminary injunction under § 74 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. The creditor must substantiate the claim and demonstrate a genuine concern that the enforcement of the future judgment would be jeopardised. If granted, typically within seven days (or 48 hours in urgent cases), the court prohibits the debtor from disposing of specific assets. To prevent abuse, the creditor is required to post a security deposit to cover potential damages to the debtor should the claim prove unfounded.

The executor has the discretion to determine the most effective manner of enforcement and may utilise multiple methods simultaneously to cover the debt and costs.

Bank accounts

This is the most frequently used method due to its speed and low cost. The executor issues an electronic order to the bank to block the debtor’s funds up to the amount of the claim. Once the order becomes final, and the statutory voluntary payment period expires, the bank is obliged to transfer the funds directly to the executor for distribution to the creditor.

Shares

Enforcement against a debtor’s share in a limited liability company or joint-stock company involves the seizure of the share. Depending on the corporate form and the transferability of the share, the executor may either sell the share in a public auction or, if the share cannot be transferred, cause the participation of the debtor in the company to be dissolved, seizing the “settlement share” that becomes payable to the debtor.

Debts due to the judgment debtor from third parties

The executor can seize receivables owed to the debtor by third parties (sub-debtors). The sub-debtor is ordered to withhold payment to the judgment debtor and instead pay the amount to the executor. This is commonly applied to salaries, trade receivables, tax overpayment, or insurance settlements.

Real estate

The executor issues an enforcement order which is immediately recorded in the public Cadastre, preventing the sale, transfer, or encumbrance of the property. The property is then evaluated by an expert appraiser and subsequently sold via an electronic public auction. The proceeds are used to satisfy the claims, though mortgage lenders typically hold priority status.

Movable property

Known as “mobiliar execution”, this involves the executor’s staff physically entering the debtor’s home or business premises to inventory and seize tangible assets (cash, vehicles, electronics, machinery). These items are removed and sold — typically through online auction portals to maximise recovery value.

Czech enforcement law adheres strictly to the principle of legal ownership. Direct enforcement measures can generally only be taken against assets to which the debtor holds legal title. The concept of “beneficial ownership” is not sufficiently established in Czech law to allow an executor to directly seize assets owned by a third party (such as a shell company or a relative) merely on the basis that the debtor controls or benefits from them.

However, the legal system provides a remedy in the form of an action to challenge asset transfers under § 589 et seq. of the Civil Code (Act No. 89/2012 Coll.). A creditor may file a lawsuit to declare specific legal acts of the debtor ineffective relative to the creditor. This action targets transactions made by the debtor in the recent past (typically up to five years for intentional acts to defraud creditors) that disadvantaged the creditor, such as transferring real estate to a spouse or selling valuable shares to a related entity at an undervalue. If the court grants the claim, the executor is then permitted to enforce the debt against that specific asset as if it still belonged to the debtor, effectively piercing the shield of the transfer.

Enforcement against jointly owned assets is permitted but limited by the nature of the co-ownership. In cases of fractional co-ownership (where the debtor owns, for example, a one-half share of a property), the executor seizes and sells only the debtor’s mathematical share. The other co-owner retains their share but is often granted a statutory pre-emption right to purchase the debtor’s share during the auction process to prevent a third party from entering the ownership structure.

A more aggressive regime applies to the “joint property of spouses” (společné jmění manželů). Assets lawfully falling within the joint property of spouses can be seized and sold to satisfy a debt incurred by only one of the spouses. This includes funds in a bank account held in the name of the non-debtor spouse, provided the funds constitute joint property. The non-debtor spouse has legal standing to file a specialised motion to exclude specific assets from enforcement if they can prove the asset is their exclusive property (acquired before marriage, by inheritance, or restitution) or if the scope of the joint property was previously modified by a notary deed.