Preliminary injunction in the Czech Republic: fees and costs

A German equipment supplier learns that its Czech buyer has stopped answering calls and started moving receivables to a related company. The underlying claim is not yet decided, and by the time it is, the assets that would satisfy it may already be gone. A preliminary injunction is the tool built for exactly that gap.

A preliminary injunction in Czech civil proceedings asks the competent Czech court to freeze or restrain conduct before the underlying claim is decided. It sits in procedural law on interim relief, separate from the substantive claim, and the court works under a short statutory deadline to rule once the application is filed.

This page sets out who may apply and where, the route the application follows through a Czech court, the deadline that binds the court's decision, what the file must contain, and the point at which the matter is best handed to an advocate.

Why does a preliminary injunction create cost exposure before the case is decided?

A preliminary injunction shifts financial exposure into the interim stage of the case, before either side has proven anything. This is an interim measure, not a decision on the merits, and its own costs are calculated separately from the underlying claim. The court may require the applicant to lodge security, and if the injunction is later found unjustified, the applicant is liable for the damage the measure caused.

This is the point most first-time applicants miss: filing for a preliminary injunction is not a low-cost preliminary step. It is a decision with its own consequences, separate from the underlying dispute. An owner who freezes a counterparty's account and then loses the main case does not simply walk away – the freeze itself can generate a claim for damages against the applicant.

Czech procedural law treats the security, where ordered, as protection for the respondent against exactly this scenario. Once an injunction is enforced and later lifted as unjustified, the resulting liability is personal to the applicant and cannot be undone by winning some other part of the case. The cost calculus has to be made before filing, not after the injunction is granted.

Court costs in the main proceedings normally follow the outcome of the case as a whole, not the interim measure in isolation. A preliminary injunction that succeeds does not itself decide who ultimately pays the underlying claim; a preliminary injunction that fails can still leave the applicant facing the respondent's costs of resisting it.

The word "preliminary" describes the timing, not the seriousness of what is at stake.

Who may apply, and under what conditions?

A preliminary injunction is open to any party to a prospective or already pending claim who can show two things at once: that the underlying claim is likely well-founded, and that without the measure the eventual judgment could not be enforced or would be enforced only with substantial difficulty. A foreign party applies on the same terms as a Czech one.

The applicant does not need to prove the claim in full at this stage – that is what the main proceedings are for. What has to be shown is a credible, evidenced risk: assets being moved, a company being emptied of value, records being altered. A bare assertion that the respondent "might" act is not enough.

Jurisdiction matters here in a way that surprises foreign owners. Where the parties have agreed to arbitration seated in Prague under a jurisdiction clause, that agreement does not remove the Czech court's power to grant interim relief in support of the arbitration. The two tracks run in parallel: the injunction can be sought from the court while the merits proceed before the arbitral tribunal.

Where the underlying facts or assets sit outside the Czech Republic, the analysis has to include what the foreign register or record actually shows, not what the applicant assumes it shows.

An owner watching a Czech counterparty move assets does not have weeks to decide – the same delay lets the counterparty finish dissipating what would satisfy the judgment. LISTINA delivers a factual report on the debtor's asset position and the state of the relevant registers within a stated number of working days. This gives the application a documented basis rather than a guess; write to info@listinafirm.com. Representation before the Czech court, once the application is filed, is provided by a collaborating advocate.

What is the route, and what deadline binds the court?

The route runs in a fixed order. The application is filed with the competent Czech court, which reviews it – as a rule without a hearing – and rules under a short statutory deadline counted from the point the file is complete.

• The application is filed with the court that has jurisdiction over the underlying claim or over the assets to be restrained.
• The court reviews the file, ordinarily without summoning the respondent first.
• The court rules within the short deadline Czech procedural law sets for this type of decision.
• If granted, the injunction is served and becomes enforceable; if security was ordered, it is lodged before enforcement proceeds.
• The main claim continues to judgment; the injunction remains in force only for as long as the conditions for it persist.

The deadline is the part that punishes hesitation. A window to prevent the transfer of a specific asset does not reopen once that asset has changed hands – a court ruling issued after the transfer cannot restore what has already left the debtor's estate. Gathering evidence – including evidence abroad – has to happen in parallel with drafting the application, not before it.

An Austrian lessor froze a Czech tenant's rental receivables five weeks before the underlying claim was served on the tenant, closing off a transfer of the same funds already being arranged (winter 2025). The timing, not the size of the claim, decided whether the measure had any practical effect.

Where the assets or the evidence sit outside the Czech Republic – in Switzerland or under the Lugano framework, for instance – the factual picture has to be built from what the foreign record actually shows. That is the kind of asset tracing across the Czech-Swiss border a factual report is built for, and it has to happen before the application is drafted.

A deadline measured in days reads as generous only to someone who has not yet tried to meet it.

What must the application file contain?

The file has to demonstrate both limbs of the test at once: that the underlying claim is credible and that the risk to its enforcement is real, not hypothetical. A file that argues only one of the two – a strong claim with no evidence of risk, or an urgent risk with no stated claim – is the most common reason a preliminary injunction is refused.

• A clear statement of the underlying claim and its factual basis.
• Evidence supporting the likelihood that the claim is well-founded – contracts, correspondence, invoices, prior judgments.
• Evidence of the specific risk that, without the measure, the eventual judgment could not be enforced.
• Identification of the exact assets, accounts, or conduct the injunction is meant to restrain.
• Proof of the applicant's identity and standing, with certified translations where documents originate abroad.
• A power of attorney, where the applicant is represented by counsel.

For a foreign owner, the register question is usually the weak point. What the company register, the land record, or the insolvency record of the relevant jurisdiction actually shows has to be checked before the application is drafted, not assumed from a domestic equivalent.

A record from Austria or elsewhere does not carry the same entries, in the same form, as its Czech counterpart. For a working example of what a foreign court and enforcement record can and cannot confirm, see the overview of courts and enforcement sources in Austria.

An incomplete file does not just delay the decision – it closes the route to a second attempt on the same facts, since a renewed application built on the same evidence is rarely entertained. The file has to be right the first time.

A file that is merely fast is not the same as a file that is complete.

Once the file is assembled, the question stops being "is this urgent" and becomes "is this documented". LISTINA's factual report sets out what the relevant registers and records show – company, land, or insolvency – within a stated number of working days. This gives the advocate drafting the application something to file rather than something to reconstruct under time pressure; write to info@listinafirm.com. Where the application itself needs to be filed and argued, that step is carried out by a collaborating advocate.

Act, wait, or stop – the decision point

Not every situation that feels urgent meets the test for a preliminary injunction, and filing one that fails wastes the very time it was meant to save. The decision point comes down to whether the risk of non-enforcement can already be shown with something concrete, or only asserted.

• Assets are moving now, and this can be shown – file immediately; the applicant, supported by a factual report on the current register position, instructs counsel within days, before the transfer completes.
• The claim exists but the risk is not yet evidenced – gather documentary and register evidence first; the applicant and the analyst work in parallel, with no fixed deadline until the picture is complete.
• An injunction has already been granted and the main claim is proceeding – prepare for a possible dispute over the security or over damages; counsel aligns this with the calendar of the main proceedings.
• The facts show concern but not a documented risk – do not file yet; reassess once new evidence, such as a fresh register entry, actually appears.

Before the matter starts, documents and registers can show what is currently recorded – ownership, charges, pending filings. They cannot show intent, cannot predict how a specific judge will weigh the evidence, and cannot confirm that a respondent will not move assets between the check and the filing. A factual report narrows the uncertainty; it does not remove it.

Frequently asked questions

Who may file preliminary injunction?

Any party to a claim that is already pending, or about to be filed, may apply, including a foreign party, provided the claim is credible and there is a genuine risk that without the measure the eventual judgment could not be enforced.

What is filed with it?

The application itself, together with a statement of the underlying claim, documentary evidence supporting it, and a precise identification of the assets, accounts, or conduct the injunction is meant to restrain.

What is the deadline?

Czech procedural law obliges the court to rule within a short deadline once the file is complete, well ahead of the calendar the main proceedings will follow; an incomplete file restarts that clock.

Why is it rejected?

Most refusals come from the same gap: the file shows a claim but not a documented risk of non-enforcement, or names a risk without identifying the specific assets or conduct at stake. Urgency alone, without that evidentiary link, does not meet the test.

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.

Tereza Kolářová works on court practice, procedure and evidence. He writes on how a Czech case file is built and read.

A preliminary injunction that arrives a week too late is not a smaller version of the right outcome – it is a different case, fought over what is left rather than what was owed. LISTINA delivers a factual report on the debtor's assets and the relevant Czech and foreign registers within a stated range of working days. This lets the application be filed on evidence rather than urgency alone; write to info@listinafirm.com. The application itself, and any hearing before the court, is handled by a collaborating advocate.