Přezkum rozhodnutí o ne/připuštění změny žaloby?
Review of the decision on the in/admissibility of an amendment to the statement of claim?

Summary/Abstract: According to Section 202(1)(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal is objectively inadmissible against a ruling that has or has not allowed an amendment to the claim. Nevertheless, the case law of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court allows for the review of a first-instance court’s decision on the admission or non-admission of an amendment to a claim (primarily a statement of claim) by an appellate court upon the plaintiff ’s appeal and objection to the decision concluding the proceedings before the first-instance court (i.e., primarily an appeal against a judgment). However, this analogy of a so-called deferred appeal created by case law has absolutely no support in the law; on the contrary, the law associates the effects of formal legal force and bindingness with a resolution on the amendment of a claim. Moreover, admission of review also causes considerable problems in relation to the statute of limitations and the assessment of lis pendens. The article therefore criticizes the questionable case law of both courts and offers possible solutions de lege ferenda. At the same time, this is a topic that no one has really dealt with in Czech doctrine yet. That is why the article often refers to German and Austrian, but also Slovak legislation, literature, and court practice, and uses them for comparison. On this basis, it concludes that the most feasible option is immediate recourse (appeal) only against a ruling on the inadmissibility of an amendment to the claim. Conversely, a ruling on its admissibility should always be unchallengeable.

• Details
• Contents