Important decision
The Supreme Court confirmed that the suspension of enforcement due to lack of results does not, in and of itself, preclude the filing of a new petition for enforcement based on the same enforcement order against the same debtor. The creditor is not required to present new facts regarding the debtor’s assets, but must, upon the bailiff’s request, post a reasonable advance payment toward the costs of enforcement.
The Civil and Commercial Division of the Supreme Court approved the legal principle on this issue at its meeting on February 11, 2026. According to this ruling, a creditor may file a new petition for enforcement even if a previous enforcement proceeding between the same parties was discontinued due to futility pursuant to Section 55(7) through (13) of the Enforcement Code. The success of the new petition cannot be contingent on the creditor submitting new information regarding the debtor’s financial circumstances.
At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized that the law addresses fruitless enforcement proceedings in such a way that, after six years without recovering at least an amount sufficient to cover the costs of enforcement and without the seizure of real property, the enforcement may be discontinued. However, according to the court, the text of the law does not imply a prohibition on reopening enforcement proceedings; on the contrary, this is consistent with Section 90(3) of the Enforcement Code, which provides for an advance payment toward enforcement costs in such cases. A creditor may thus file a new enforcement proceeding, but bears the risk that even repeated enforcement efforts may prove unsuccessful.
The decision arose from a dispute over a claim by the Brno-Královo Pole municipal district in the amount of 125,484 CZK plus interest, which had already been awarded in 2006. The lower courts had concluded that, following the termination of the original enforcement proceeding due to its futility, a further petition was no longer admissible. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, stating that prior futility does not constitute res judicata and that the debtor’s financial circumstances may change over time. This is a significant conclusion in practice, particularly for public creditors dealing with a large number of long-standing uncollected claims.
Yes. The creditor may file a new enforcement petition based on the same enforcement order and against the same debtor, even if the previous enforcement proceedings were discontinued due to lack of results.
No. The filing of a new petition cannot be made contingent on the creditor providing new information about the debtor’s income or assets.
No. The suspension of a previous enforcement proceeding due to lack of results does not constitute res judicata, because it does not rule on the existence of the claim itself.
The enforcement officer may require the creditor to pay a reasonable advance toward the costs of enforcement. If the creditor fails to pay the advance, this may result in the suspension of the enforcement proceedings.
As a general rule, enforcement may be suspended if, over a period of six years, it has not been possible to collect even an amount sufficient to cover the costs of enforcement, and the debtor’s real property has not been subject to enforcement. However, the law also provides for the possibility of extending this period.
Our team of experienced attorneys will help you solve any legal issue. Within 24 hours we’ll evaluate your situation and suggest a step-by-step solution, including all costs. The price for this proposal is only CZK 690, and this is refunded to you when you order service from us.
In person and online. Just choose the appropriate service or opt for an independent consultation when you are unsure.
