Many people run a civil case on a simple pattern: file the claim, make a few motions, then wait quietly to see what the court does. Yet the case law of the past two years has been a firm reminder that a party can ask the court for much more. The court should put its legal view on the table, must not take a party by surprise, has to give proper procedural guidance and must give honest reasons for its decision. It should also handle costs and evidence sensibly.
Several of the most interesting procedural weapons target how the court decides rather than the claim itself. That is often where cases that look clear-cut at first sight are won or lost. I have already written about why not every battle is worth fighting and what litigation and business negotiation have in common. This time I go straight into recent case law.
¶ 1. You can ask the court not to surprise you, including on costs
In judgment file no. 30 Cdo 2630/2025 of 3 March 2026 the Supreme Court recalled that a decision is a surprise if it could not be foreseen from the established facts, from the course of the proceedings and from the parties' submissions to date. This matters most where the court changes its view of the case only at the very end. In that case, however, the objection failed because the appellant did not explain what exactly was surprising. The objection therefore always has to be substantiated.
The Constitutional Court went further in finding file no. II. ÚS 297/26 of 18 March 2026. In its view, the ban on surprise decisions also covers the cost order. If an appellate court changes its legal view on the tariff value without warning and recalculates the costs without giving the party a chance to respond, that is a constitutional problem.
¶ 2. The duty to give guidance: when the court owes it and where it ends
Two Supreme Court rulings from this year are useful in practice here.
In judgment file no. 28 Cdo 2748/2025 of 17 March 2026 the Supreme Court stressed that the duty to guide parties under Section 118a of the Czech Code of Civil Procedure applies objectively. If the need to add allegations or evidence arises from the appellate court's different legal view, the trial court's failure to guide is a procedural defect whatever the reason for it. It makes no difference whether the omission was a mistake, inattention or a belief that guidance was not needed. In other cases the appellate court can itself make up for the missing guidance on appeal.
So if an appellate court adopts a different legal view that requires additional factual allegations or evidence, it cannot patch things up as it goes along. The Supreme Court expressly linked such a situation to setting the decision aside under Section 219a of the Code of Civil Procedure. On appeal a party already runs up against the limits of concentration and the rules on new facts and evidence.
Supreme Court order file no. 28 Cdo 86/2026 of 18 March 2026 then marks the opposite limit: the duty to guide comes into play only where the existing allegations and evidence are insufficient to clarify the facts. The court is not there to stand in for a party's litigation tactics. The question of whether to go to court at all, or to choose mediation or arbitration instead, is best settled long before procedural guidance becomes an issue.
¶ 3. Are you the defendant? You can stop the plaintiff from simply walking away
Objecting to the withdrawal of a claim is one of the most underrated procedural options. Many people still assume the plaintiff can simply back out and that ends the dispute. It is not that simple.
In order file no. 33 Cdo 1588/2025 of 26 March 2026 the Supreme Court confirmed that the defendant may oppose the withdrawal of the claim for serious reasons. This applies where the plaintiff withdrew only after the hearing had begun (Section 96(3) and (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure). In that case the Supreme Court treated the following as serious reasons:
- the proceedings are already at an advanced stage,
- the defendant has meaningfully contributed to clarifying the case,
- a decision on the merits matters for the future legal position of the parties.
Referring to earlier case law, it also recalled that the defendant has a serious reason where the taking of evidence has progressed so far that a decision can be expected and the plaintiff is withdrawing to prevent a decision that would go against it.
¶ 4. Costs are not decided by arithmetic alone
Costs are often treated as a technicality. Yet this is where case law is most likely to surprise you.
In order file no. 25 Cdo 1603/2025 of 17 March 2026 the Supreme Court rejected the extraordinary appeal brought by the bereaved relatives, yet under Section 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure it refused the successful insurer its costs of the extraordinary appeal proceedings, because awarding them would have been disproportionately harsh on the plaintiffs. The relevant factors included the nature of the claim, the loss of a close family member, the defendant's passive response to earlier demands and its economic strength.
So the rule that the winner gets everything is not absolute. Exceptionally, the court can say: you won procedurally, but in this particular case full reimbursement would be inappropriate.
In finding file no. III. ÚS 3062/25 of 2 April 2026 the Constitutional Court added that cost orders must rest on the correct legal classification of each kind of cost. It expressly held that the cash expenses and fees of a court-appointed attorney are not costs of the State within the meaning of Section 148(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Holding otherwise is a qualified error of interpretation and an interference with the right to judicial protection.
How the fee you agree with your attorney differs from what the court actually awards you in costs is something I went through, with five concrete examples, in a separate piece: Attorney's fees in court: who reimburses them and how much.
¶ 5. A small case does not mean small reasoning
Constitutional Court finding file no. III. ÚS 232/25 of 30 April 2025 concerns the quality of reasoning. The Constitutional Court criticised the appellate court for failing to give proper reasons for its conclusions and essentially settling for a reference to the intervener's submission. In the Constitutional Court's view, this is a problem not only of reasoning but also of judicial impartiality.
The dispute was of low value. The Constitutional Court stepped in all the same, because the case had broader implications and could influence other decisions.
¶ 6. Stop repeating the myth that you cannot prove a negative
Supreme Court judgment file no. 21 Cdo 1993/2024 of 10 December 2024 is very practical for evidence. In it the Supreme Court expressly described the so-called negative theory of the burden of proof as obsolete: negative facts can be proven, and often must be, typically through circumstantial evidence.
It was an employment dispute, but the conclusion has wider procedural reach. A party that is closer to the evidence cannot comfortably hide behind the claim that something cannot be proven. The court took into account that the employer keeps the records and therefore has objectively better access to proving certain facts.
¶ 7. Procedural activity is not automatically "your fault"
Supreme Court judgment file no. 30 Cdo 2630/2025 of 3 March 2026 deserves a second mention, this time on compensation for unreasonable length of proceedings. The Supreme Court recalled that ordinary procedural steps cannot be held against a party as a contribution to delay. The exceptions are steps the party was not entitled to take and vexatious steps aimed at dragging out the proceedings. Otherwise such steps can count at most towards the complexity of the proceedings. Motions, excused absences and legitimate appeals are therefore not misconduct in themselves. The link to limitation, the silent claim killer is indirect but real: the longer the proceedings last, the greater the risk that substantive-law periods running in parallel start working against you.
¶ Summary: seven procedural weapons at a glance
| Weapon | When to use | Key ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Surprise-decision objection | Court rests its ruling on a legal view never aired in the proceedings, costs included. | 30 Cdo 2630/2025; II. ÚS 297/26 |
| Breach of duty to give procedural guidance | You lose for "pleading too little" or "proving too little" without Section 118a guidance. | 28 Cdo 2748/2025; 28 Cdo 86/2026 |
| Objection to withdrawal of claim | Defendant needs a ruling on the merits; plaintiff is retreating from an adverse outcome. | 33 Cdo 1588/2025 |
| Section 150 + correct classification of costs | Full reimbursement would be disproportionately harsh; costs of State vs. court-appointed attorney conflated. | 25 Cdo 1603/2025; III. ÚS 3062/25 |
| Attack on appellate reasoning | Appellate court merely "refers" to the other side's submission, even in a low-value case with broader reach. | III. ÚS 232/25 |
| Proving a negative fact | The other side is closer to the evidence; "it can't be proven" no longer flies. | 21 Cdo 1993/2024 |
| Defence against "contribution to delay" | Ordinary procedural steps cannot, without more, be read as obstruction. | 30 Cdo 2630/2025 |
Heading into a dispute, or already in one and needing a second pair of eyes? We deal with procedural detail of this kind every day in our dispute resolution practice. Get in touch. The initial consultation is non-binding and usually shows whether litigation makes sense or whether the dispute should be run differently.
¶ Conclusion: in a civil case, waiting is not enough
The case law of the past two years shows that a party to a civil case can ask more of the court than the standard overviews suggest. The table above summarises the individual tools. None of them works on its own, though: you have to raise the objection and substantiate it, or it will fail like the surprise objection in 30 Cdo 2630/2025.
In practice this means reading every court decision with procedure in mind. Did the court take you by surprise? Did it give guidance in time? Did it reason the decision itself? Did it classify the costs correctly? The answers often determine whether there is an appeal or a constitutional complaint to be made.
¶ Case law cited
Full texts of the cited decisions can be looked up in the official Czech databases: NALUS (Constitutional Court) and the Supreme Court website.
- Constitutional Court finding file no. II. ÚS 297/26 of 18 March 2026
- Supreme Court judgment file no. 30 Cdo 2630/2025 of 3 March 2026
- Supreme Court judgment file no. 28 Cdo 2748/2025 of 17 March 2026
- Supreme Court order file no. 28 Cdo 86/2026 of 18 March 2026
- Supreme Court order file no. 33 Cdo 1588/2025 of 26 March 2026
- Supreme Court order file no. 25 Cdo 1603/2025 of 17 March 2026
- Constitutional Court finding file no. III. ÚS 3062/25 of 2 April 2026
- Constitutional Court finding file no. III. ÚS 232/25 of 30 April 2025
- Supreme Court judgment file no. 21 Cdo 1993/2024 of 10 December 2024
¶ Related reading
The procedural weapons in this text work better the more you understand who decides your dispute and how. A judge may be affected by decision fatigue and anchoring, a client often has hidden interests, and it is easy to demonise the other side by reflex. I devoted a separate popular-science piece to this: The Psychology of the Parties: How a Judge Decides. The scientific background of negotiation itself (Kahneman, Cialdini, Voss, BATNA) is covered in Statutes Are Just the Foundation: Psychology and Tactics in a Legal Dispute. The choice of procedural weapons also depends heavily on which game you are actually playing: chess (full information), poker (signalling, credibility) or Monopoly (exhausting resources). I write about that in Chess, poker, Monopoly – and Snakes and Ladders.
¶ Frequently asked questions
Can a defendant object to the plaintiff withdrawing the claim?
Yes, if the plaintiff withdraws only after the hearing has begun and the defendant has serious reasons; the court must engage with them (Section 96(3) and (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure; 33 Cdo 1588/2025). Examples include an advanced stage of proceedings, the defendant's significant contribution to clarifying the case, the importance of a ruling on the merits for the parties' future position, or a plaintiff trying to prevent an adverse decision that is already expected.
Can an appellate court decide on a new legal view without letting me add facts or evidence?
It should not. Where a different legal view requires additional pleadings or evidence, the Czech Supreme Court linked the situation to setting the decision aside under Section 219a of the Code of Civil Procedure (28 Cdo 2748/2025).
Are the fees and expenses of a court-appointed attorney costs of the State?
No. According to Constitutional Court finding III. ÚS 3062/25 they are not costs of the State within the meaning of Section 148(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and holding otherwise is a qualified error of interpretation and an interference with the right to judicial protection.
Can an appellate court simply refer to the other side's submission instead of giving reasons?
As a rule, no. In finding III. ÚS 232/25 the Constitutional Court stepped in because the appellate court had essentially settled for a reference to the intervener's submission, even though the dispute was of low value, as the case had broader implications.
Can ordinary procedural steps be held against me as a contribution to delay?
Not without more. According to Supreme Court judgment 30 Cdo 2630/2025, a party's procedural activity can be held against it as a contribution to delay only where the steps were ones it was not entitled to take, or vexatious steps aimed at dragging out the proceedings. Otherwise they can count at most towards the complexity of the proceedings.
What counts as a surprise decision in civil proceedings?
A decision that could not be foreseen from the established facts, the course of the proceedings and the parties' submissions to date (30 Cdo 2630/2025). If an appellate court bases its ruling on a legal view that was never on the table, raising the surprise objection is appropriate.