Changing a final court decision is a very substantial interference with the rights of the parties. It should only occur in exceptional circumstances, such as fundamental procedural defects in the proceedings, or entirely new evidence or facts that come to light after the judgment has been delivered. If such circumstances arise, how can we proceed?
In civil matters, it is only exceptionally possible to overturn a final judgment. Typically, an action for a retrial comes into play when new facts or evidence are discovered that could not have been used before, or an action for a mistrial when a serious procedural defect has burdened the proceedings. Both procedures have strict conditions and short time limits, so it is important to assess quickly whether this is indeed the correct extraordinary remedy. We can help you do this by assessing whether an application for a retrial, an action for a mistrial, an appeal or another procedural procedure makes sense in your case and preparing the entire submission for you.
Let us start by adding that the more common and frequently used remedies are primarily ordinary ones, which are used to review decisions that have not yet become final. They therefore do not interfere with the legal situation already established. These include, in particular, appeals, as well as opposition and objections.
We have detailed the appeal process in civil court proceedings in our article. In it, you will learn what should not be missing in the appeal, what its effects are and how the court can decide.
It pays to be represented by a lawyer to file an extraordinary appeal. Don’t underestimate his or her selection and choose a law firm with a proven track record. Our legal filings are meticulously prepared in every respect. We will carefully analyze your case and take care of the preparation of the lawsuit and representation in court, where we will vigorously enforce your rights.
I want to help with the preparation of the lawsuit
Among the extraordinary remedies offered by the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) are an action for a retrial, an action for a miscarriage of justice and an appeal. The law defines quite strictly the range of decisions against which each remedy may be used. It also regulates the admissibility of the grounds for bringing them. Should an exceptional situation arise where it would theoretically be possible to bring all three appeals simultaneously, preference is given to deciding on the appeal. In a competition between two of those actions, the action for annulment would then ‘prevail’.
| What means makes sense | When it is used | Typical reason | Basic time limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appeal | Against a non-final decision | Error of fact or law | depending on the type of proceedings |
| Appeal | Against a final decision of the Court of Appeal | Fundamental question of law | statutory time-limit for appeal |
| Action for a retrial | Against a final decision on the merits | New facts, decision or evidence | 3 months from the date on which the ground was established, normally a maximum of 3 years |
| Action for miscarriage of justice | Against a final decision where there is a serious procedural defect | E.g. disqualified judge, deprivation of the opportunity to be heard | normally 3 months from service, in some cases from discovery of the defect |
We have devoted a separate article to the possibilities of using the appeal in civil proceedings.
An application for a retrial may be used if, after the decision has become final , facts have come to light which were not known and could not have been used, although they have a substantial impact on the decision. Similarly, new evidence may be adduced. However, the important point is that it already existed at the time of the decision, it was just not known at the time. However, if the evidence was already known and proposed in the previous proceedings, but was not taken, it cannot form the basis of the present action.
The new evidence or facts in question should lead to a more favourable decision in the case for the party bringing the action (or at least it is assumed that it will). It may be brought by a party who has not been successful (at least in part) in the proceedings, or by an ‘intervener’ (that is, a third party whose rights are not directly at stake in the dispute, but may be affected by it – for example, in a recourse action). If the only remedy sought is to remedy legal defects, then an action for a retrial cannot be used.
Examples include the discovery of a new witness of whom we were previously unaware or whose whereabouts were unknown, the discovery of a will after inheritance proceedings have taken place, or the return of a person who has already been declared dead.
The action is admissible against:
On the other hand, an action may not be brought against:
An action may be brought before the court of first instance within three months of the discovery of the new facts (the so-called subjective time-limit), but at the latest within three years of the original decision becoming final (the so-called objective time-limit). These time limits cannot be waived.
The division and the system of courts in the Czech Republic were discussed in a separate article.
The law allows only one exception to the above time limits. If a decision in another proceeding (e.g. a criminal judgment, a decision on an offence, etc.) is annulled and the decision challenged in the action for retrial depends on that decision, then the action may be brought within three months of the annulment of the related decision. The objective time-limit of three years does not apply here.
The application should, first of all, identify the decision which it is challenging and to what extent. It should also identify the new pleas in law or facts which have come to light and explain why they could not have been raised earlier. Since the subjective time-limit of three months for bringing an action is relevant here, the application should also contain evidence of the timeliness of the application. An important part is the so-called ‘petition’ of the action, i.e. what the claimant is seeking.
The proceedings then break down into two. First, the renewal itself is decided and then , if the court allows the action, it decides the case again. Allowing the reopening also suspends the enforceability of the decision. The court shall hear the case again, taking into account any new facts and evidence which have come to light. It may then either dismiss the application for amendment of the original decision by order or give a new judgment on the case.
Successful recourse to an action for a declaration of nullity makes it possible to set aside or alter the original decision where it was accompanied or preceded by procedural defects in the proceedings. By procedural defects we mean defects in the procedure itself, for example, where the case was decided by a judge or a presiding judge who was excluded, or where a matter was decided not by the court at all but by another body, or where a party was deprived of the opportunity to be heard by the court. They must be distinguished from so-called substantive errors of law, where the court misapplied the legal rule under which it was ruling.
An action for a miscarriage of justice may be brought by a party to proceedings who has not been fully satisfied by the decision of the court or has suffered prejudice to his rights. An action may also be brought by a person who has been deprived of the opportunity to be heard by the court in the course of the proceedings as a result of the court’s incorrect conduct. Under the conditions specified in the Code of Civil Procedure, interveners, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Office for State Representation in Property Matters and the Children’s Ombudsman are also entitled to bring an action.
The action shall be admissible against:
As in the previous case , this action may not be used against:
The Act further provides in some of its provisions for the inadmissibility of both types of actions in special cases.
You may bring an action for annulment before the court which decided at first instance within three months of the delivery of the contested decision. However, if the action is brought because the party to the proceedings was prevented from appearing before the court and was not properly represented, the action may be brought within the period of three months beginning on the date on which the party was appointed a representative or the obstacle preventing him from appearing before the court ceased to exist. The maximum period of time is limited by law to three years from the date on which the contested decision becomes final.
At the first stage, the court decides whether the action is admissible. If it considers the action to be unfounded, it shall dismiss it by order. If it is found to be well-founded, the contested decision (or, where applicable, the decision which preceded it) is annulled. The case shall then be reheard and a new decision shall be taken.
We have listed theremedies available to you in criminal proceedings in a separate article.
In practice, we repeatedly encounter two types of problems. The first group of clients arrives late because they think that the deadline will start only when they have finally clarified everything. The second group responds in time, but chooses the wrong remedy – instead of a claim for confusion, they describe new evidence or, on the contrary, in the retrial they only object to a legal error of the court.
Most often, therefore, we first do a quick procedural audit: we review the judgment, service, the course of the proceedings, and the new materials to assess whether there is any statutory basis for extraordinary intervention at all. The client is then usually helped by the very distinction of whether a retrial, a motion for mistrial, an appeal, or whether it is more expedient to focus on another follow-up procedure makes sense.
If you are unsure whether your case involves new evidence or a procedural error by the court, it is worth having the matter reviewed before filing suit. Often, it is not only the content of the objections that is decisive in an extraordinary appeal, but also the correct choice of procedural instrument and compliance with the time limit. We can quickly assess whether a submission has a realistic chance and prepare the entire representation, including the drafting of the statement of claim.
A final decision of the court in 2026 can only be overturned in exceptional circumstances and only by precisely defined procedural routes. An action for retrial comes into play when new facts, decisions or evidence are discovered that, through no fault of the party, could not have been used in the original proceedings. By contrast, an action for a miscarriage of justice is directed at serious procedural defects which may have undermined the fairness of the proceedings. For both remedies, it is crucial to assess the legal basis quickly, to choose the correct procedure and not to miss the deadline. In practice, therefore, it is often not just whether a party is ‘right’ but whether it can assert it with the right procedural tool and in time.
No. Only when the law allows a specific extraordinary remedy and its conditions are met.
A retrial addresses new facts or evidence. An action for a miscarriage of justice addresses serious procedural defects in the proceedings.
It’s not enough. Mere disagreement with the assessment of the case is usually not sufficient for either a retrial or a mistrial.
In the case of a retrial, usually within 3 months of the finding of the ground, in the case of a miscarriage of justice, usually within 3 months of the delivery of the decision; however, it depends on the specific ground.
Yes, if the action is likely to succeed, the court may order a stay of execution.
Yes, the law generally does not preclude it. In practice, however, it is important to correctly identify the reason and not miss the deadline, which can be risky without legal assistance.
It is necessary to assess the relationship between the various remedies. In some situations, the appeal takes precedence and the action is stayed.
Has the court ruled against you and do you want to fight it? We will assess your chances of success and take care of preparing an appeal, appeal or constitutional complaint depending on the proceedings and their stage.
Ondřej is the attorney who came up with the idea of providing legal services online. He's been earning his living through legal services for more than 10 years. He especially likes to help clients who may have given up hope in solving their legal issues at work, for example with real estate transfers or copyright licenses.
In person and online. Just choose the appropriate service or opt for an independent consultation when you are unsure.
