In its judgment file No. 25 Cdo 590/2025, dated 3 December 2025, the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic clarified the application of the principal of procedural concentration after a legal proceeding has been remitted by a superior court to a lower court.
The Supreme Court established that the annulment of a decision of a lower court and the return of a legal proceeding to a lower court (the court of first instance) for a new court hearing does not, by itself, result in a general departure of the statutory principal of procedural concentration.
The effects of the principal of procedural concentration cease only in relation to specific factual findings that, when reviewing the decision of the lower court, the superior court considers incorrect, premature, or not evidenced. The principal of procedural concentration does not apply to new circumstances or evidence that the superior court deems relevant under substantive law, provided that the initial concentration during the proceeding before the lower court (court of first instance) did not occur due to the lower court's incorrect application of the substantive law. If the lower court failed to duly instruct the parties regarding the relevance of certain facts, as required by Section 118a(1) – (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, the prohibition on pleading new assertations of facts and submitting new evidence does not apply to those facts and pieces of evidence in the subsequent proceedings.
This decision of the Supreme Court confirms that, while the principal of procedural concentration is designed to expedite court proceeding, it cannot be used to prevent a party from properly presenting their arguments and evidence (pleading new assertations of facts and submitting new pieces of evidence) when the lower court has previously failed to handle the proceedings correctly.
The principle of procedural concentration is a fundamental rule in civil procedural law (particularly in civil law jurisdictions) requiring that all assertations of facts and evidence be pleaded and presented by the parties at specific, early stages of the proceedings, rather than in a slow, fragmented manner. Its primary purpose is to speed up court proceedings, ensure judicial efficiency (procedural economy), and prevent parties from using delay tactics.
The main consequence of this principle is that facts or evidence submitted after the designated stage of proceeding will not be considered by the court (preclusion). It forces litigants to be proactive and responsible, preparing their case fully before or during the initial stages of the court proceeding. It enables the court to resolve disputes in a single hearing or in fewer, more focused sessions, rather than multiple, disconnected hearings. It serves to prevent parties from intentionally stalling proceedings by introducing new evidence late in the process. Specific time limits for presenting facts and evidence are strictly defined by law.