Taking evidence abroad in the Czech Republic: step by step

An in-house counsel discovers that a key witness, or the documents that decide the case, sit outside the Czech Republic, and the Czech court hearing the matter cannot simply summon them across the border. The pleadings are exchanged, the file is otherwise ready, but taking evidence abroad has to happen through a formal channel before any of it can be used at trial. Step by step, the file now depends on a process the court does not run alone.

Taking evidence abroad in a Czech case means the Czech court asks a foreign court or authority to take the evidence on its behalf, under the international framework for judicial cooperation that applies between the two states; the request states the facts at issue and the specific evidence sought, and the requesting court sets a return date measured in months.

This page sets out when the route applies, what the deadlines are, what the request file has to contain, and the point at which pursuing it, waiting, or abandoning it is the right call for counsel managing a cross-border dispute.

When does a Czech court have to take evidence abroad?

A Czech court reaches for this route when evidence needed for a pending case exists in fact but sits beyond its own summons power: a witness resident abroad, a document held by a foreign bank or counterparty, a site to inspect on foreign territory. Compulsion stops at the border; cooperation with a foreign court or authority is what carries the request the rest of the way.

Two channels apply depending on where the evidence sits. Within the European Union, the courts use the shared framework for judicial cooperation in civil matters, which sets common forms and a return date. Outside the Union, the route runs through the applicable bilateral or multilateral convention on taking evidence, or, failing that, through letters rogatory sent via diplomatic channels — the slowest and least predictable of the three.

Missing the window to request evidence before the hearing on the merits closes the door to using it at all. The record is largely fixed once the court has heard the case on substance, and a foreign witness statement obtained afterward carries little weight against a file that has already been closed.

A request sent to the wrong authority in the requested state does not fail quietly — it is returned, and the clock starts again from the point of correction.

Does this procedure apply to your matter?

Taking evidence abroad only fits a narrow set of situations: the evidence exists and is identifiable, it cannot be obtained by the party voluntarily or through ordinary correspondence between counsel, and a Czech proceeding is already pending or about to be filed. Where none of that holds, the procedure is the wrong tool and delays a case that could otherwise move.

• The evidence is located in a specific, named foreign state, not merely "abroad" in general.
• No jurisdiction clause in the underlying contract has already routed the dispute, and the evidence question, to a different forum.
• The party holding the evidence has refused, or is expected to refuse, voluntary production.
• The Czech proceeding will still be open by the time the request could realistically return.

Where the actual concern is not proving a fact but the risk that assets disappear before judgment, the right tool is an interim protective measure, not this procedure — the two solve different problems and run on different clocks.

A counsel weighing whether months abroad are worth it needs the applicability question answered before the request leaves the court, not after. LISTINA prepares the factual report that maps what evidence already exists domestically, what genuinely sits abroad, and what a request would need to state, delivered within 10–15 working days. Representation before the Czech court, if the matter requires it, is provided by a collaborating advocate. Write to info@listinafirm.com.

What is the route, step by step, and where do the deadlines bind?

The route runs in a fixed order: the Czech court identifies the evidence and its location, drafts the request, transmits it through the applicable channel, waits for the requested authority to execute it under its own rules, and receives the evidence back into the file. The deadline that actually binds is the return date the requesting court itself sets, not a date fixed by statute.

• The Czech court identifies the evidence needed and the state where it is located.
• The court drafts the request, stating the facts to be proven and the specific evidence sought.
• The request is transmitted to the competent authority in the requested state through the applicable channel.
• The requested authority executes the request under its own procedural rules.
• The evidence taken is returned to the Czech court and entered into the file.
• The case resumes, and the evidence is put before the court at the hearing.

• Evidence located in another EU state – the court issues the request under the shared EU framework – the requesting court acts – return date set by the requesting court, typically several months.
• Evidence located outside the EU, in a treaty state – the court issues a letter of request under the applicable convention – the requested authority acts – timing follows that authority's own procedure.
• Evidence located in a non-treaty state – diplomatic channel or letters rogatory – the foreign ministry and requested court act – no binding deadline, the longest of the three routes.
• Evidence obtainable by voluntary production – no formal request needed – the party itself acts – governed by the ordinary procedural deadline already running in the case.

A German supplier's request for documents held by a Czech counterparty added five months to a contract dispute before the underlying claim was even heard on the merits, in the winter of 2025 — a length of time the client had not budgeted for when the request was filed.

The requesting court's own deadline is the only one that binds anyone; the requested state's procedure runs on its own clock entirely.

What must the file contain before the request leaves the court?

The request itself carries the weight of the whole procedure — a vague or incomplete request is either returned or executed too narrowly to be of use. What goes into it has to be settled before it is sent, not corrected after.

• A precise statement of the facts the evidence is meant to prove.
• The exact questions to be put to a witness, or the exact documents or records sought.
• Confirmation that the evidence cannot be obtained by the party directly.
• A translation of the request into the language required by the requested state.
• Any procedural safeguard the foreign proceeding requires, such as the presence of counsel or a right to object.
• The return address and the deadline the Czech court expects.

Where the underlying goal is recovering a debt rather than proving a disputed fact, the more direct route is often to sue the Czech company with account attachment instead of building an evidentiary file abroad first.

Before a request goes out, the file benefits from an outside read of whether it states the facts and the evidence sought with enough precision to survive execution abroad. LISTINA reviews the draft request against what the registers and documents on both sides actually show, delivered within 10–15 working days. Representation, where the matter needs it, remains with the collaborating advocate. Write to info@listinafirm.com.

Act, wait, or stop: what is the decision point?

The decision point is not about the merits of the case — it is about whether the evidence abroad is worth the months it will cost. Acting makes sense when the evidence is decisive and no faster route exists; waiting makes sense when the case can proceed on what is already in the file while the request runs in parallel; stopping makes sense when the evidence turns out to be marginal to the outcome.

What cannot be established from documents and registers before the request is filed: how quickly the requested state's own authority will act, whether it will interpret the request narrowly, and whether the witness or custodian will cooperate once approached. These depend on the requested state's practice, not on anything readable in advance from the Czech file.

A French claimant's letter of request to a non-treaty state stalled for over a year, and the case proceeded to judgment on the evidence already in the file instead, in the summer of 2024 — the request that was meant to strengthen the claim never returned in time to matter.

Where the underlying dispute is actually about a debtor's solvency rather than a disputed fact, the decision point looks different — see preventive restructuring when a petition is premature for that branch of the same problem.

Frequently asked questions

• When is taking evidence abroad the wrong step?

  When the evidence can be obtained by other means — voluntary disclosure between the parties, or documents already available domestically — the formal route adds months without adding anything the file did not already have. It is also the wrong step where no Czech proceeding is pending or imminent to attach it to.

• What is the alternative?

  Where the goal is preserving assets rather than proving a fact, an interim protective measure addresses the actual risk directly. Where a party will produce the record voluntarily, ordinary correspondence between counsel is faster than any formal request.

• What stops the clock?

  The clock effectively stops once the request has left the Czech court and sits with the requested authority abroad. The Czech proceeding is typically adjourned pending its return, which routinely runs to several months depending on the requested state, and the case does not move to a hearing on the merits until the evidence is back in the file.

• What is enforceable afterwards?

  Evidence taken abroad through the formal channel and returned to the Czech court file becomes part of the record the court relies on for judgment. It does not itself create an enforceable obligation; enforcement follows only once judgment is entered on the substance of the claim.

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 file that depends on evidence still sitting abroad is a file where the timeline is no longer entirely in counsel's hands. LISTINA maps what is already provable domestically, what genuinely needs a foreign channel, and what the request should say, delivered within 10–15 working days. Representation before the Czech court, where needed, is provided by a collaborating advocate. Write to info@listinafirm.com.