Supreme Court: Judgement by default where the defendant fails to respond; mere non-approval is not sufficient. An appeal will only review the statutory requirements; it does not remedy the defendant’s failure to respond.
In its ruling of 28 May 2026, ref. no. 33 Cdo 2717/2024, the Supreme Court confirmed that, provided the conditions set out in Sections 114b and 153a of the Code of Civil Procedure are met, the court may issue a judgment by admission without a substantive hearing of the dispute. In the case in question, the defendant failed to respond in time to a formal request for a written statement, and this gave rise to the legal fiction of acceptance of the judgment (“deemed acknowledgement”).
What exactly is deemed acknowledgement?
Deemed acknowledgement is a sanction for procedural inaction: it arises if the defendant fails to respond to a formal request from the court within the prescribed time limit and does not provide a valid reason for their failure to do so. A purely formal response such as “I object” is not sufficient, as, in order to avert the deemed acknowledgement, the response must contain at least the basic outlines of a defence – that is, decisive facts which could lead to at least partial success.
The purpose of this provision is to expedite proceedings and to protect the equality of the parties against obstruction.
The court will issue a qualified summons where the nature of the matter or the circumstances of the case so require, typically when, without the defendant’s statement, it is not possible to prepare the first hearing in such a way as to enable a decision to be made; the court of appeal expressly upheld this procedure in the present case.
An appeal will not remedy passivity
In the case of a judgment by admission, the court of appeal reviews only whether the statutory conditions for its issuance were met (e.g. that the matter was one in which a settlement could be reached), not the correctness of the findings of fact or the claim itself. If deemed acknowledgement has occurred, any subsequent or belated defence raised on appeal will no longer affect the outcome; on appeal, only strictly defined objections relating to the conditions for granting a judgment by admission may be raised.
The practical implications
- For the claimant: if the opposing party is passive or merely formally active, an enforceable decision can be obtained swiftly – the court will rule on the basis of the acknowledgement without taking evidence. This has significant practical importance, particularly where there is a risk of asset diversion (in the case in question, the defendant sold the property following a disputed contract), and delays would jeopardise the enforceability of the claim.
- For the defendant: do not underestimate the importance of your initial response – it must contain specific factual objections; mere non-approval will not rebut the presumption, and the court may rule against you without a substantive review. In this regard, the Supreme Court also emphasises that procedural conditions are key; questions of substantive law, however contentious, are not decisive for the issuance of a judgment by admission.
Author: Miroslav Kopeček, Senior Associate, Dispute Resolution, LYNX Czech Republic
Source: Supreme Court