Amendment to Civil Procedure Code

Act No. 424/2002 Coll., amending and supplementing the Act No. 99/1963 Coll. the Civil Procedure Code, as amended

The recent amendment of the Civil Procedure Code brings changes to a number of its provisions. It broadens the regulation of administrative judiciary and implements modifications connected with the new Arbitration Act (see the May issue of Financial Law News), Act on Higher Judiciary Officers (see in this issue), proposed Act on Domestic Violence or the Treaty with the Holy See (Vatican).

The amendment supplements the existing regulation of injunctions. The time period for issue of an injunction concerning minors or persons jeopardized by violence is reduced from 30 to 7 days from filing the petition. A court injunction may order a person not to enter residential premises inhabited by a close person or person in custody, if the ordered person is accused of violence against such persons. In such case the court decides on an appeal against the decision on petition for injunction without undue delay, at latest within 30 days from filing the appeal and the first instance court submits the case to the appellate court within 15 days from the expiry of period for appeals.

If the appellate court overrules the first instance decision, the first instance court is liable to decide again in the period for first instance decisions.

The Act newly stipulates court jurisdiction in issues concerning arbitration.

It is allowed to refuse to give a testimony, if such testimony would be inconsistent with confessional secret or secret of information entrusted to a person authorised for pastoral care.

In defamation proceedings the act abolishes the court's duty to decide within one year from submission of petition.

A higher court officer's (the ``officer'') decision may be appealed under the same conditions as decisions of a judge. By filing an appeal against the officer's decision the decision is fully nullified and the case is submitted for decision to a judge. That does not apply if the appeal was filed after expiry of appeal period, or filed by an unauthorised person, or the decision is not appealable, or only costs of proceedings are appealed, or if the appeal can be fully accepted by a judge without affecting rights of other parties. The appeal is decided by a judge. The judge's decision is considered to be the first instance decision and may be appealed again.

Regulation of enforcement of decisions is supplemented by a new provision corresponding with the prepared changes in regulation of pledges and mortgages. A court enforcement of a decision concerning an item, right, other proprietary value, or residential and non-residential premises, which are burdened by a pledge, or mortgage may be ordered only with a consent of the pledgee or if the pledgee is the person requesting the enforcement.

The most extensive changes were made in the fifth part of the act covering administrative judiciary. Contrary to the present principle of single instance administrative judiciary, the amendment establishes two instances. The Supreme Court is competent to decide in the first instance only in proceedings concerning decisions of central bodies of state administration and certain other institutions stipulated by law. Regional Courts are competent in other cases. The Supreme Court decides in the second instance, in case of appeals against the Supreme Court's first instance decisions. The appeals are decided by another court senate consisting of five members.

A court may repeatedly levy a fine up to SKK 50,000 to an administrative body, which fails to submit the case or its decision to the court.

In case of petitions against decisions of, or procedures applied by, administrative bodies, appeals are admitted and extraordinary legal remedies are no longer applicable.

Three new chapters are added to the part on administrative judiciary: Proceedings Against Failure to Act caused a Public Administrative Body, Proceedings on Protection Against Unlawful Interference by a Public Administrative Body and Enforcement of Decisions of Foreign Administrative Bodies. The court may decide on duty of administrative body to decide the case or to cease interfering with the rights of the petitioner and resume the previous status (restitutio in integrum).

A court may order enforcement of foreign administrative decisions, in case an international treaty binding the Slovak Republic contains an obligation to execute such foreign decisions and a regional court has decided, based on a petition filed by an entitled person, that the foreign decision is enforceable.

A foreign decision is enforceable, if:

1. it is enforceable in a country of its issue,
2. decision was not in the competence of Slovak administrative bodies,
3. person obliged under the decision was not deprived of possibility to participate in the proceeding,
4. it entails an obligation admissible and enforceable under the Slovak law or is not in conflict with the public policy.

Provisions of the Act described in this article became effective from 1 January 2003, certain other provisions became effective from 1 September 2002.

---

Next: Act on Higher Court Officers
Up: July 2002
Previous: Amendment to Criminal Procedure Code