CZECH REPUBLIC Law and Practice Contributed by: Robert Němec, Michal Sylla, Viktor Glatz and Adéla Šmahelová, PRK Partners
measures without concerns about the expiration of the limitation period. 3.6 Case Management Powers of Courts The Collective Proceedings Act introduced a plan of collective action proceedings to be prepared by the court. The plan shall, among other things, include an overview of contested and uncontested facts, and determine the time and agenda of upcoming court hearings or evidence to be taken. As a result, col- lective action proceedings are expected to be more predictable and organised compared to standard civil court proceedings. Other case management powers of courts not typi- cally found in Czech civil proceedings that were intro- duced by the Collective Proceedings Act include the determination of a deadline for group member regis- tration, the possibility of excluding registered group members upon the claimant’s request as well as the possibility of rejecting certain procedural steps made by the claimant (eg, change or withdrawal of the claim) or rejecting a settlement proposal if it is not consid- ered fair to the group’s interests. Otherwise, the court’s case management powers do not significantly differ from those already recognised by the Code of Civil Procedure. 3.7 Length and Timetable for Proceedings It is difficult to provide an estimate of the length or a standard timetable of collective action proceedings as these can vary greatly depending on the specific circumstances of the case. As of October 2025, only one collective action has been filed under the new legislation and the proceedings are still ongoing (at the appeal stage). Generally, the average length of standard civil pro- ceedings in the Czech Republic is around one year for a case to reach a first instance decision, though this also includes simple cases or cases where the defendant does not actively participate in the pro- ceedings. The average length of first instance pro- ceedings where both parties are active is between one and two years. However, considering the possibility of filing appeals in a generally three-instance court system and relatively frequent cancellations of first
instance judgments, leading to repeated first instance proceedings and repeated appeals, some cases can take more than ten years to reach a final judgment. According to the Collective Proceedings Act, a deci- sion on admissibility shall be issued as soon as pos- sible after the initiation of the proceedings and the deadline for group member registration shall not be longer than four months. Given the necessity to enable the defendant to make a statement regarding admis- sibility and the possibility of scheduling a hearing to assess admissibility, it will likely take approximately six months before the court proceeds to assess the merits of a collective action (should the defendant actively participate in the proceedings). The duration of the proceedings on merits will depend on numerous factors, such as the complexity of the matter, effective case management by the judge, room for a potential settlement or any appeals. Since col- lective action proceedings will always concern claims of a larger number of individuals, the average duration will likely exceed that of regular civil proceedings. Considering that both the Collective Proceedings Act and the Code of Civil Proceedings stipulate exclusive jurisdiction of a single court (the Municipal Court in Prague), the actual length of collective action proceed- ings may also largely depend on the number of pend- ing proceedings and the workload of judges assigned to decide on collective actions. So far, only two judges at the Municipal Court in Prague have been assigned to conduct collective action proceedings. 3.8 Mechanisms for Changes to Length/ Timetable/Disposal of Proceedings The Collective Proceedings Act requires the court to prepare a plan of collective action proceedings, which provides for a basic timeframe of the proceedings and shall bring more predictability and organisation. How- ever, the plan should not in any way limit the length of the proceedings and may be changed by the court if the circumstances so require. Beyond this, there is currently no legal framework gov- erning procedural mechanisms allowing for changes to the length, timetabling or disposal of proceedings.
97
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook