Publication details
Přezkum rozhodnutí o (ne)připuštění změny žaloby
| Title in English | Review of the decision to (not)allow the amendment of the action |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2025 |
| Type | Appeared in Conference without Proceedings |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Description | According to § 202(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, no appeal is admissible against the decision of the court of first instance to allow or not to allow the amendment of the action. On this basis, the settled case-law of the Supreme Court has long held that if the court of first instance does not allow the plaintiff's proposed amendment of the action, it means that the claim brought by the plaintiff will definitely not be heard and decided in the proceeding, as it will not become the matter in dispute (it is thus definitively and bindingly established that the amended action will not be decided in the proceeding). In the statement Pl. 43/16, however, the Constitutional Court concluded that constitutionally compatible is only such an interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which in proceedings on appeal against a decision on the merits, the appellate court is not bound by the decision of the court of first instance not to allow the amendment of the action - “even if the decision is not formally reversed” - and must therefore review it in its entirety. In its judgment III.ÚS 356/22, the Constitutional Court subsequently extended the applicability of that conclusion to all positive decisions on requests under § 95(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the appellate court is allowed and obliged, in proceedings on an appeal against a decision on an interim measure, to review also the decision allowing the amendment of the request for an interim measure. The question is, however, how to proceed in the procedure after the appellate court overturns, for example, the judgment of the court of first instance for incorrectly not allowing the amendment of the action, when the final (definitive and binding) judgment is still part of the case file? What should be done if, in the meantime, the plaintiff - in accordance with the relevant case-law - brings the same claim as in the amended action in a separate action? And does not foreign (for example, German) regulation and judicial practice offer a better way of dealing with requests to amend and their review? |
| Related projects: |