Review hearing in the Czech Republic: step by step

A CFO overseeing a foreign supplier's Czech receivables hears that the debtor has entered insolvency, and that the claim the finance team already filed through the insolvency register now depends on something called a review hearing. Nobody in the group can say what that hearing actually decides, who has to be present, or what happens if the claim comes back marked disputed. The clock that matters starts running from the hearing itself, not from the day the claim was first lodged.

A review hearing is the point in Czech insolvency proceedings where the administrator, the debtor and creditors confirm or dispute each registered claim before the insolvency court. Czech insolvency legislation ties a strict deadline, counted from that hearing, to any dispute – missing it can extinguish the affected part of the claim for good.

This page sets out what triggers the hearing, who is actually affected, the route and its deadlines, the document set that keeps a foreign claim intact, and the decision a creditor has to make once the list is published.

What triggers a review hearing, and when does it happen?

A review hearing follows automatically once the statutory period for filing claims in a given Czech insolvency case closes; a creditor does not request it. The court fixes the date once the insolvency administrator has compiled the list of filed claims, and that date is published on the insolvency register – it is not sent by private notice to each creditor abroad.

Before the hearing, the administrator marks every claim on the list as recognised or disputed, and states, where a dispute exists, whether it comes from the administrator, from the debtor, or from another creditor. This list is the document that decides whether a creditor has to act. Some disputes at a review hearing originate not in the claim itself but in a challenge to pre-insolvency transactions that the administrator considers voidable, which is a separate line of argument running alongside the claim review.

A creditor who does not check the insolvency register in the weeks before the hearing can miss that its claim has been marked disputed. The objection window that follows runs from the hearing date itself, not from the day the creditor happens to notice, and once it closes it cannot be restored by a later filing.

Who is actually affected, and what does the applicability turn on?

Not every claim gets argued at the hearing. A claim the administrator and the debtor both recognise, and no other creditor disputes, is confirmed as a formality; the creditor's presence adds nothing to that outcome. The hearing matters in substance only for claims that appear on the published list as disputed by someone – and it is that status, not the size of the claim, that decides whether attendance or a reaction is required.

A foreign creditor with an uncontested claim can, as a rule, follow the outcome through the register without travelling to the hearing. A foreign creditor whose claim is disputed faces a different calculation: the dispute is decided either at the hearing or in a follow-on court action, and a representative present or instructed in advance is the only practical way to react inside the deadline.

A German supplier's claim was marked disputed by the debtor two weeks before a scheduled hearing; because a local representative had been checking the register on a weekly basis, the objection was filed with days to spare rather than after the window had already closed (autumn 2025).

The hearing date is published once; it is not repeated by post to every creditor on file.

A claim marked disputed at a Czech review hearing does not wait for the creditor to notice – the deadline to litigate it runs regardless. LISTINA produces a factual report on the claim's status in the insolvency register and the document set behind it, delivered within a stated number of working days, at info@listinafirm.com. Where the dispute needs to go to court, representation is handled by a collaborating advocate.

What is the route, and what are the binding deadlines?

The route runs in a fixed sequence, and each step has a different actor and a different deadline attached to it.

• The creditor files the claim within the statutory period – creditor, fixed filing window.
• The administrator reviews the claims and publishes the list marked recognised or disputed – administrator, before the hearing date.
• The court convenes the review hearing on the published date – court, fixed calendar date.
• If disputed, the creditor (or the party disputing another's claim) brings the incidental action – disputing party, strict deadline counted from the hearing.
• The court decides the incidental dispute, and the outcome feeds back into the distribution in the main proceedings – court, no separate creditor deadline at this stage.

Where the dispute concerns whether a transaction preceding the insolvency petition should be clawed back, and the timing of the petition itself is also in question, the analysis runs along a related but distinct route, decided on its own facts rather than folded into the claim review.

Once the deadline to bring the incidental dispute runs out, the route to enforce the disputed portion of the claim within that insolvency closes. The claim is not revived by filing again, and it is not revived by a later insolvency of the same debtor either.

What must the file contain before the hearing?

The file that goes into a review hearing has to stand on its own, because the hearing itself is not the moment to start assembling proof.

• The original claim as lodged in the insolvency register, with its filing date.
• The underlying contract or invoice set establishing the amount and the due date.
• Dated evidence of delivery or performance behind the claimed amount.
• A power of attorney, with a certified translation, if the creditor is represented.
• Any prior correspondence in which the amount or the debt itself was disputed.
• A record of how the claim was communicated to the administrator, in case timing is questioned.

Whether the administrator will dispute a particular claim, and on what ground, cannot be read from the file in advance. It becomes visible only once the list is published before the hearing, which is why the document set has to be complete beforehand rather than assembled in reaction to it.

A Dutch lessor's claim, initially marked disputed for lack of supporting invoices, was reclassified as recognised once the underlying delivery notes were filed three days before the hearing (winter 2025).

A complete file changes what the administrator marks; it rarely changes what the file needs to contain.

Cross-border visibility of the claim also depends on how the Czech insolvency register interacts with other national registers; the recent interconnection with European registers changes how quickly a foreign creditor can check the published list without relying on a local contact.

Assembling contracts, invoices and delivery records after a claim has already been marked disputed leaves little margin against a deadline that does not extend. LISTINA reviews the register entry and the document set and states, factually, what the file currently supports and what it does not – contact info@listinafirm.com before the hearing date, not after it.

Act, wait or stop – what does the decision point actually look like?

Once the list is published, the creditor's position falls into one of a small number of situations, each with a different response.

• Claim recognised, no dispute from anyone – no action required, creditor, no deadline attached.
• Claim disputed by the administrator or the debtor – file the incidental action, creditor, strict deadline from the hearing.
• Claim disputed only by another creditor – respond within the same deadline framework, disputing creditor, deadline from the hearing.
• Status unclear from abroad – check the published list before the hearing date, creditor or representative, before the hearing.

Once the hearing has taken place and the deadline has lapsed, the insolvency register keeps the entry in its final form. There is no administrative route back into the claim once it has gone unlitigated through that window.

Frequently asked questions

What does review hearing cost in time?

The window to react to a disputed claim, counted from the hearing itself, is short – a matter of days rather than weeks. Its exact length depends on the specific dispute and is set out in the applicable insolvency legislation, which is why the deadline needs to be checked against the actual case file rather than assumed.

Which form is used?

The claim is filed on the standard form used for claim registration in Czech insolvency proceedings, submitted through the insolvency register. The incidental dispute that follows a review hearing is a separate court filing, not a continuation of that same form.

Is a representative required?

Attendance and representation are not mandatory for an uncontested claim. Once a claim is marked disputed, a representative able to act inside the deadline becomes the practical way to protect it, though the law does not impose representation as a formal condition.

What if the party is abroad?

A foreign creditor follows the case through the insolvency register and should keep an address for service current in the file. Checking the register in the weeks before the hearing date is the only reliable way to know whether the claim has been marked disputed in time to react.

LISTINA produces factual reports from documents and public registers. It does not provide legal advice and does not represent parties. Where a matter requires representation before a Czech court or authority, it is handled by a collaborating advocate.

Klára Bartošová works on insolvency in numbers: registers, claims, distributions.

If a claim's status in a Czech insolvency case is not yet clear, or a hearing date is already set, the register entry and the supporting file are worth checking before the deadline runs, not after. LISTINA delivers a factual report on the claim and the register within a stated number of working days – info@listinafirm.com. Any court step that follows is carried out by a collaborating advocate.