Taking evidence abroad: what the other side does in Czech
A foreign party in a Czech-seated dispute often needs evidence that sits abroad – a witness, a document, an account record held by a foreign bank. In-house counsel weighing whether to request assistance abroad also has to plan for what the opposing side does once that request reaches the court file.
In a Czech dispute, taking evidence abroad runs through the court handling the merits, which forwards the request under the applicable international instrument. The other side receives notice before dispatch and may object to scope or method at that point, under the evidentiary rules of Czech civil procedure.
Who files the request, and where it goes
The court seized of the merits decides whether to seek evidence abroad – a party proposes it, but the request leaves the country as an act of the court, not of the litigant. That distinction shapes everything that follows.
Where an EU instrument applies, the Czech court forwards the request directly to the competent foreign court, without going through a ministry. Outside the EU, the route typically runs through the Ministry of Justice or a diplomatic channel, which adds a step but not a different logic. The other side is notified once the request is drawn up and before it leaves the country – that window is where the opposing party first reacts.
The notice stage, not the eventual answer from abroad, is usually where the timeline actually stalls.
What is filed with it
A request for evidence abroad states the fact to be proven, the specific piece of evidence sought, and, for a witness, the questions to be put. Nothing here promises what the foreign court will find – it defines what is being asked for.
The other side may file observations on scope before the request is sent – arguing that a question is irrelevant, that a document is not properly identified, or that the method proposed does not exist in the foreign court's own procedure. Those observations become part of the file the Czech court reviews before the request leaves the jurisdiction. Once the request comes back – or a dispute arises over whether it was answered at all – the party contesting the outcome moves into the same procedural track as any other contested finding, and what a complete appeal file must contain becomes the operative question, not the taking of evidence itself.
The deadline, and what interrupts it
Where the other side files an objection to a request's scope, the court considers that objection before the request is dispatched abroad – the clock on the underlying dispute does not stop, but the evidentiary step does. A party expecting a witness statement to appear by a fixed date should build in this pause as a matter of course, not an exception.
The situation is straightforward in outline: a party proposes evidence abroad, the court reviews and, absent an unresolved objection, forwards the request within its ordinary case management timetable. Once forwarded, the timeline for a response belongs to the foreign court or authority, and Czech procedure has no fixed period compelling that court to answer by a set date.
Why requests for evidence abroad are turned back
A request drafted too broadly – asking a witness to "describe the business relationship" rather than naming a specific fact – draws an objection on relevance before it ever leaves the country. A missing translation, or a method the receiving jurisdiction's court does not recognise, produces the same result.
The other side's objection does not need to succeed to cause delay; raising it is often enough to force a second look at the request's drafting. Counsel on either side who treats the drafting stage as a formality tends to meet this objection later, at a worse point in the proceedings.
A file showing where a request currently stands does not establish whether the foreign court will comply, or how it will read the questions put to it – that lies outside what any Czech-side record can show before the request is answered.
What happens after the decision
Once evidence returns from abroad, it enters the case file as any other piece of evidence – the other side can still challenge its weight at trial, but not, at that stage, the method by which it was taken. That objection had its window earlier, before dispatch.
In one cross-border supply dispute, the foreign defendant's own request to depose a witness abroad stalled for months after the claimant objected to the relevance of several questions; the underlying claim proceeded on the remaining evidence while that objection was resolved. Nothing in the record could have shown, at the outset, how long that resolution would take.
A stalled request for evidence abroad rarely stops the rest of the case – it narrows what the court can rely on at judgment.
Where the dispute itself sits on a foreign arbitral title rather than a domestic judgment, the evidentiary questions above sit inside a separate track – enforcing a foreign arbitral award in the Czech Republic runs on different documents and a different deadline structure entirely. Where the evidence itself concerns a foreign counterparty's standing, a register report – such as a company register report for a counterparty registered in Italy – can sometimes substitute for a slower request abroad.
Frequently asked questions
Where is taking evidence abroad filed?
The request is filed with the Czech court already handling the merits of the dispute, not with any separate body. That court decides whether to forward it and, where an EU instrument applies, sends it directly to the foreign court; otherwise the request typically passes through the Ministry of Justice.
How long does the court take?
Czech procedure sets no fixed period for the foreign court's response once a request is forwarded. The Czech court's own step – reviewing the request and any objection before dispatch – usually happens within its ordinary case management timetable, not on a separate clock.
Can the other side object?
Yes. The other side is notified before the request leaves the country and can object to its scope, its relevance, or the method proposed. This is the step most often mistaken for a formality, and it is where delay most commonly starts.
What follows the decision?
Evidence obtained abroad enters the case file like any other evidence. The other side can still contest its weight at trial, but the window to contest the method of taking it closes once the request has been dispatched without a sustained objection.
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.
A request for evidence abroad that stalls on an unresolved objection can leave a claim resting on an incomplete record right up to judgment – a gap that is far harder to fix once trial has started than before the request was drafted. LISTINA prepares factual reports mapping what a given file currently shows and what remains outstanding abroad, delivered within a defined window of working days. Write to info@listinafirm.com.