International Arbitration 2026 Comparisons

Arbitration is an established consensual method of resolving commercial and other arbitrable property disputes in the Czech Republic, including cross-border disputes. It is not, however, a default or compulsory alternative to litigation, and state-court litigation remains considerably more common overall.

Domestic parties regularly use arbitration in B2B relationships. Under Act No 216/1994 Coll., on Arbitration Proceedings and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (the “Arbitration Act”), parties may submit property disputes to arbitration provided that the dispute could otherwise be determined by a court and the parties could conclude a court settlement concerning its subject matter. Consumer-business disputes, disputes arising in connection with enforcement proceedings and insolvency incidental disputes are expressly excluded.

There are no official nationwide statistics comparing the overall volume of international arbitration with litigation. Statistics published by the Arbitration Court attached to the Czech Chamber of Commerce and the Czech Agrarian Chamber nevertheless provide a useful indication of institutional activity. In 2025, that institution registered 440 disputes, including 65 international disputes; in 2024, it registered 498 disputes, again including 65 international disputes. These figures relate only to that institution and should not be treated as nationwide arbitration statistics.

International arbitration involving Czech parties is principally based on contractual arbitration clauses in cross-border commercial contracts, the choice of the Czech Republic as the seat of arbitration, and the recognition and enforcement in the Czech Republic of foreign arbitral awards.

There are no reliable nationwide statistics identifying particular industries as accounting for a significant proportion of international arbitration in the Czech Republic. Czech arbitration legislation itself is sector-neutral and focuses primarily on the arbitrability of the relevant property dispute rather than the industry concerned.

In practice, arbitration is particularly suited to cross-border transactions in sectors such as construction and infrastructure, energy, manufacturing, international sales and distribution, technology, finance and corporate/M&A transactions, where parties may value procedural flexibility, specialist decision-makers, confidentiality of hearings and international enforceability. This should, however, be regarded as a market-practice observation rather than a statement based on verified nationwide case-volume data.

Commodity disputes constitute a more clearly identifiable specialist area because the International Arbitration Court in Prague at the Czech-Moravian Commodity Exchange Kladno (PRIAC) is a statutory permanent arbitral institution focusing in particular on domestic and international commodity trading and related commercial disputes.

The principal Czech permanent arbitral institution is the Arbitration Court attached to the Czech Chamber of Commerce and the Czech Agrarian Chamber, seated in Prague. Its current Rules are in a consolidated version effective from 1 January 2025. From that date, parties are no longer restricted to an institutional list when nominating arbitrators.

Another active Czech permanent arbitral institution is PRIAC – the International Arbitration Court in Prague at the Czech-Moravian Commodity Exchange Kladno, established under the Commodities Exchanges Act and operating particularly in the field of commodity and related commercial disputes.

Czech parties are also free to select foreign or international institutions, such as the ICC or VIAC. No official market-share statistics permit a reliable ranking of all institutions used by Czech parties.

No new Czech permanent arbitral institution established by statute has been identified during the preceding 12 months.

The Czech Republic does not have a specialised international commercial court or a single state court dedicated exclusively to arbitration.

Under Sections 41–43 of the Arbitration Act:

• Regional Courts (krajské soudy) have first-instance jurisdiction over actions concerning the invalidity of an arbitration agreement and applications to set aside an arbitral award;
• other arbitration-related proceedings are generally dealt with by the court that would have had jurisdiction over the merits in the absence of the arbitration agreement; and
• judicial assistance with procedural acts requested by arbitrators is entrusted to the relevant District Court (okresní soud).

Territorial jurisdiction is generally linked to the place of arbitration where it is situated in the Czech Republic.

The principal legislation is the Arbitration Act. In matters involving a foreign element it is supplemented by Act No 91/2012 Coll., on Private International Law (the “PIL Act”). The Czech Civil Procedure Code applies appropriately and subsidiarily where the Arbitration Act does not provide otherwise. Applicable international treaties, most importantly the New York Convention, prevail within their scope.

The Czech Republic has not enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as such. It is not included by UNCITRAL among jurisdictions whose legislation is based on or influenced by the Model Law for the purposes of its official status table. Nevertheless, a number of Model Law concepts influenced the Czech legislation.

Important differences from the Model Law include:

• a single statutory regime applying to domestic and international arbitration;
• an arbitrability test based on property disputes that the parties could settle;
• exclusion of business-consumer disputes;
• no Model Law Article 16(3)-type immediate court challenge against a positive preliminary jurisdiction ruling;
• no comprehensive statutory regime for tribunal-ordered interim measures; and
• the possibility for parties to agree on an internal review of the award by other arbitrators under Section 27.

The current consolidated version of the Arbitration Act has been effective since 1 January 2024. No amendment to its core commercial-arbitration regime has entered into force during the preceding year.

As at 12 August 2026, no pending legislative proposal materially reforming or replacing the general Czech commercial-arbitration regime has been identified.

The principal requirements for an enforceable arbitration agreement are the following.

• Arbitrability – the agreement must relate to a property dispute that may legally be submitted to arbitration and that the parties could settle before a court.
• Written form – the arbitration agreement must be in writing. The statutory requirement can also be satisfied by electronic communications permitting the content of the agreement and the persons concluding it to be identified.
• Sufficiently defined scope – it may concern an existing dispute or future disputes arising from a specified legal relationship or defined group of legal relationships.
• Capacity and consent – ordinary private-law rules concerning capacity and valid consent apply.
• Absence of a statutory exclusion – in particular, the dispute must not fall within the consumer, enforcement or insolvency exclusions.

An arbitration agreement does not become invalid merely because the parties have failed to identify the arbitrators or agree an appointment mechanism. Section 7(2) of the Arbitration Act provides a statutory default mechanism under which each party appoints one arbitrator and those arbitrators appoint the presiding arbitrator.

For international agreements, Section 117 PIL Act provides that arbitrability is determined under Czech law, while other requirements are generally governed by the law of the state in which the award is to be rendered; the provision also contains an alternative validation rule as to form.

The general test is whether the dispute:

• is a property dispute; and
• concerns rights in respect of which the parties could conclude a court settlement.

The Arbitration Act expressly excludes disputes arising from contracts between businesses and consumers, disputes arising in connection with enforcement proceedings and insolvency incidental disputes.

The concept of a property dispute is interpreted relatively broadly. The Czech Supreme Court has, for example, expressly held that an arbitration agreement may validly cover disputes concerning unfair competition.

For international cases, Section 117 PIL Act provides the conflict-of-laws framework: arbitrability is governed by Czech law, while other requirements concerning the arbitration agreement are generally governed by the law of the state where the award is to be rendered.

Czech courts generally give effect to valid arbitration agreements. However, the arbitration agreement constitutes a relative procedural bar rather than an objection applied automatically by the court. The defendant must invoke it no later than its first substantive procedural act. The court will continue the proceedings if, for example, the agreement is invalid or non-existent, does not cover the dispute or the dispute is non-arbitrable.

Czech law recognises separability, in terms of which an arbitral clause may be considered valid even if the rest of the contract in which it is contained is invalid.

Under Section 2(4) of the Arbitration Act, unless agreed otherwise, an arbitration agreement covers both rights arising from the underlying legal relationship and questions concerning its legal validity. Consequently, the invalidity, termination or ineffectiveness of the underlying contract does not by itself invalidate the arbitration clause.

Party autonomy is substantial.

The final number of arbitrators must be odd. A Czech citizen acting as arbitrator must be an adult, of good character and fully legally capable. A foreign national may act as arbitrator in an international case if legally capable under the law of their nationality; it is sufficient if they have full legal capacity under Czech law.

There is no general requirement that an arbitrator be a Czech-qualified lawyer. Additional qualification requirements may arise from the parties’ agreement or institutional rules.

If the parties have not agreed otherwise, each party appoints one arbitrator and the two party-appointed arbitrators choose the presiding arbitrator.

If a party fails to appoint its arbitrator within 30 days of receiving the other party’s request, or if the party-appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the chair within that period, the competent court makes the appointment unless another procedure has been agreed.

The Arbitration Act does not contain a detailed special appointment regime for multiparty arbitration. Institutional rules may therefore be particularly important in multiparty cases.

Courts may intervene principally to appoint an arbitrator or presiding arbitrator where the agreed or statutory appointment process fails, to appoint a replacement arbitrator and, where statutory conditions are met, to decide an application for removal.

When making an appointment, the court must consider the requirements of independent and impartial decision-making.

An arbitrator is excluded where their relationship to the dispute, the parties or their representatives gives rise to justified doubts as to impartiality.

A prospective or appointed arbitrator must promptly disclose circumstances capable of raising justified doubts. If a disqualifying circumstance arises, the arbitrator should resign. If the arbitrator does not resign, the parties may follow their agreed challenge procedure or apply to the competent court for removal.

Czech law requires impartiality and disclosure of potentially disqualifying circumstances and requires courts, when appointing arbitrators, to consider independence and impartiality. Arbitrators are also subject to statutory confidentiality.

The Arbitration Act does not itself make international soft-law instruments such as the IBA Guidelines binding, although parties or arbitral institutions may use them as additional guidance.

The principle of competence-competence is applicable in the Czech Republic.

Under Section 15 of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators may rule on their own jurisdiction. An objection based on the non-existence, invalidity or termination of the arbitration agreement must generally be raised no later than the party’s first substantive act in the arbitration, except where the objection concerns objective non-arbitrability.

A Czech court may address jurisdiction in particular:

• when deciding whether court litigation must be discontinued because of an arbitration agreement;
• in proceedings concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement;
• in proceedings to set aside a Czech arbitral award; and
• at the recognition or enforcement stage.

Where arbitration has been commenced first, Czech procedural law may require a court dealing with the arbitration agreement to await the tribunal’s jurisdictional or merits decision. The Czech system does not provide an immediate court appeal equivalent to Article 16(3) of the Model Law against a tribunal’s preliminary positive jurisdiction ruling. The attached draft correctly identifies this distinction.

A negative jurisdiction ruling likewise has no special statutory appeal. Instead, if the tribunal finds that it lacks jurisdiction, the claimant may bring the claim before the competent court or other competent body within 30 days and preserve the procedural effects of the original filing.

A jurisdictional objection should generally be raised before the tribunal no later than the party’s first substantive act.

A challenge to the final award must generally be brought within three months after delivery of the award. If the tribunal declines jurisdiction, the 30-day preservation mechanism described in 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention applies.

Czech legislation does not formally label the standard of judicial review as “de novo” or “deferential”.

In substance, when a court must determine whether a valid and applicable arbitration agreement exists, it determines that jurisdictional question independently. This does not permit it to reopen the merits of the underlying dispute.

Questions usually characterised as procedural “admissibility” are generally left to the tribunal, subject to the limited statutory grounds for subsequent judicial intervention.

A court does not dismiss proceedings merely because an arbitration agreement exists. The defendant must invoke the agreement no later than its first substantive procedural act.

If the objection is timely and the arbitration agreement is valid, applicable and concerns an arbitrable dispute, the court should discontinue the litigation. Failure to invoke the arbitration agreement in time may therefore amount to waiver of that procedural objection.

Czech arbitration is fundamentally consent-based.

An important statutory extension applies to legal successors: under Section 2(5) of the Arbitration Act, the arbitration agreement binds legal successors unless the parties expressly exclude that consequence.

A third party may also become bound through valid accession, consent to joinder, assignment or another recognised legal succession mechanism.

Czech law does not recognise a general “group of companies” doctrine under which an affiliate becomes bound merely because it belongs to the same corporate group. The same principles apply to domestic and foreign third parties.

The Arbitration Act itself does not give arbitral tribunals a general statutory power to issue coercively enforceable interim measures. Section 22 instead expressly grants the relevant power to courts where enforcement of the prospective award may be endangered.

This does not mean that an arbitral tribunal can never issue interim relief. In international arbitration, such authority may arise from the parties’ arbitration agreement or incorporated institutional rules. The Czech Constitutional Court has expressly recognised that a tribunal and a national court may have parallel authority concerning interim measures where the applicable arbitral rules confer that power on the tribunal. However, the Czech Arbitration Act does not itself provide a general statutory enforcement regime for such tribunal-issued interim measures.

Czech courts have an important supporting role.

Under Section 22 Arbitration Act, a court may grant a preliminary measure before or during arbitration where enforcement of the prospective award could be jeopardised. The provision is narrower than the general civil-procedure power to regulate the parties’ relations temporarily: Czech constitutional case law confirms that Section 22 is aimed specifically at protecting future enforcement of the arbitral award.

Depending on the circumstances, measures under Czech civil procedure may include orders to deposit money or property, refrain from disposing of assets, perform a particular act, refrain from acting or tolerate a particular act.

Czech courts may also grant interim relief in support of a foreign-seated arbitration where Czech jurisdiction and the statutory requirements are satisfied. The Constitutional Court has confirmed the availability of Czech court interim measures in a case where the merits were subject to an ICC arbitration seated in Vienna.

Czech legislation contains no statutory emergency-arbitrator regime. Emergency-arbitrator authority may arise under the parties' chosen foreign institutional rules, but Czech law does not contain a dedicated statutory mechanism governing or directly enforcing such decisions.

The Arbitration Act contains no express general power allowing an arbitral tribunal to order security for the opposing party’s legal costs. Such authority may potentially arise from the parties’ agreement or applicable institutional rules.

Czech courts do have a statutory power under Section 11 PIL Act, in their own court proceedings, to require certain foreign claimants to provide security for costs upon the defendant’s application, subject to significant exceptions, including for EU and EEA claimants.

That court power should not be confused with a general statutory power to order security for costs in support of arbitration. Czech law contains no such freestanding arbitration-support mechanism.

Arbitral procedure is governed principally by:

• the Arbitration Act;
• the parties’ procedural agreement;
• incorporated institutional or other arbitration rules; and
• subsidiarily and appropriately, the Civil Procedure Code.

In matters with a foreign element, the PIL Act also applies to the relevant conflict-of-laws issues.

Czech law does not prescribe a detailed mandatory sequence of pleadings, disclosure or case-management conferences.

The principal statutory requirements include:

• commencement by delivery of the statement of claim to the permanent arbitral institution or relevant arbitrator;
• equal treatment and a full opportunity for each party to present its case;
• observance of the agreed place of arbitration or, failing agreement, determination of the place by the arbitrators;
• oral proceedings unless the parties agree otherwise; and
• proceedings that are always non-public.

Sections 14 and 18–19 of the Arbitration Act contain these core requirements.

Arbitrators may determine their own jurisdiction, organise the procedure within the parties’ agreement and mandatory statutory limits, take and assess available evidence, encourage settlement and render a binding award.

They must act impartially, respect equality of the parties, afford each party an adequate opportunity to present its case and maintain statutory confidentiality.

Their coercive powers are limited. Witnesses, experts and parties may be examined directly by the tribunal only where they attend and testify voluntarily; judicial assistance is available for procedural acts that the tribunal cannot itself compel.

The Arbitration Act itself does not require representatives in arbitration to be Czech-qualified advocates. Foreign counsel may therefore participate in Czech-seated arbitration as a matter of arbitral procedure.

This should be distinguished from the separate regulation of professional legal services in the Czech Republic. The Czech Advocacy Act regulates who may professionally provide legal services on Czech territory and contains, among other things, a regime for Czech advocates and qualifying European lawyers.

Accordingly, the procedural ability to act as a representative in an arbitration and the regulatory right to provide professional legal services in the Czech Republic are separate questions.

Czech arbitration does not provide for US-style discovery or automatic common-law disclosure.

The process is principally party-driven. Arbitrators may hear witnesses, experts and parties directly only where they attend and testify voluntarily, and other evidence can ordinarily be taken only where it is provided to them.

The parties may agree upon document production, witness statements, expert evidence, questioning and cross-examination. Failing agreement, the tribunal has broad procedural discretion, subject to equal treatment and the right to be heard.

There is no statutory right to common-law-style cross-examination or discovery.

There is no separate codified Czech arbitration evidence code.

The parties’ agreement and applicable institutional rules apply first. In their absence, the tribunal proceeds flexibly under the Arbitration Act, and the Civil Procedure Code applies appropriately and subsidiarily rather than as a rigid evidentiary code.

Czech law does not have a broad common-law privilege regime. Statutory confidentiality and professional secrecy, including lawyer-client professional secrecy, nevertheless remain applicable.

Arbitrators themselves do not have state coercive powers over either parties or non-parties.

Where a procedural act cannot be performed voluntarily, the tribunal may request judicial assistance. The competent court must generally comply unless the requested act is prohibited by law, and it may then use the coercive powers available under civil procedure, including powers relating to witness attendance and document production.

Czech law provides significant but not comprehensive confidentiality protection.

Arbitral proceedings are non-public and arbitrators are subject to an express statutory duty of confidentiality.

However, the Arbitration Act does not impose a blanket statutory confidentiality obligation upon every party, witness, expert and counsel in relation to all pleadings, documents and awards. Broader confidentiality should therefore be addressed contractually or through applicable institutional rules.

Information from arbitration may be disclosed where required in subsequent set-aside, recognition, enforcement or other legal proceedings.

An arbitral award must:

• be adopted by a majority of the arbitrators;
• be in writing;
• be signed by at least a majority of the arbitrators;
• contain a sufficiently definite operative part; and
• contain reasons unless the parties have agreed that reasons are unnecessary.

The tribunal must apply the substantive law governing the dispute unless expressly authorised by the parties to decide according to principles of equity.

The written award must be delivered to the parties. Subject to any agreed internal arbitral review, it has the effects of a final court judgment and is judicially enforceable.

There is no general statutory deadline for delivery of an award. A deadline may arise from institutional rules or the parties’ agreement.

The Arbitration Act does not contain an exhaustive list of permissible remedies.

The tribunal’s remedial authority is determined principally by the arbitration agreement, the relief claimed, the applicable substantive law and mandatory legal limits.

An award may be set aside if it grants relief that was not requested or requires performance that is impossible or unlawful under Czech law.

Punitive damages are not specifically regulated by the Arbitration Act. Their availability would depend principally on the applicable substantive law and, at the set-aside or enforcement stage, any relevant mandatory-law or public-policy limits.

Entitlement to interest is determined by the applicable substantive law.

The Arbitration Act does not establish a universal detailed cost-allocation formula. The parties’ agreement, applicable institutional rules and appropriate subsidiary application of Czech civil procedure are therefore relevant.

The Rules of the principal Czech Arbitration Court generally follow a costs-follow-the-event approach, subject to proportional allocation for partial success and tribunal discretion.

There is no ordinary appeal to a Czech court on the merits of an arbitral award.

The principal judicial remedy is an action to set aside the award under Section 31 Arbitration Act. Grounds include:

• non-arbitrability;
• absence, invalidity or inapplicability of the arbitration agreement;
• improper constitution or lack of eligibility of the tribunal;
• failure to adopt the award by the required majority;
• denial of a party’s opportunity to present its case;
• relief that was not sought or that is impossible or unlawful under Czech law; and
• circumstances corresponding to specified grounds for reopening civil proceedings.

The action must normally be commenced within three months following delivery of the award. Filing it does not automatically suspend enforceability, although the court may order a stay in the statutory circumstances.

Separately, Section 27 allows the parties to agree that an award may be reviewed by other arbitrators. That is part of the arbitration itself, not a judicial appeal.

The statutory set-aside grounds constitute the judicial challenge framework. Parties cannot create a contractual merits appeal to the Czech courts or give the state courts a broader merits-review jurisdiction.

They may, however, expressly agree upon an internal arbitral review by other arbitrators under Section 27.

Czech courts do not reassess the merits of the dispute.

They do not ordinarily reconsider factual findings, the tribunal’s evaluation of evidence or ordinary errors in the interpretation or application of substantive law. Judicial review is confined to the statutory set-aside grounds.

The Czech Republic is bound by the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards through succession following the dissolution of Czechoslovakia.

Czechoslovakia ratified the Convention with the following substantive limitation: it would apply the Convention to awards made in the territory of another contracting state and, in respect of awards made in non-contracting states, only to the extent that those states grant reciprocal treatment. The UN depositary records the Czech Republic as successor and expressly cross-refers to the Czechoslovak declaration.

Accordingly, the Czech position includes a reciprocity declaration/reservation, but not a commercial reservation limiting the Convention to disputes classified as commercial under Czech law.

For awards falling within the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement are governed principally by the Convention together with Czech procedural law.

Outside the applicable treaty regime, Sections 120–122 PIL Act govern foreign awards. Under that residual regime, foreign awards may be recognised and enforced where reciprocity exists. Recognition may occur incidentally, although a party may also seek a separate recognition decision.

Under Article IV New York Convention, the enforcing party must supply the award and arbitration agreement in the prescribed form and, where required, an appropriate translation.

An award that has been set aside at the seat faces a serious obstacle:

• under Article V(1)(e) New York Convention, recognition and enforcement may be refused; and
• under the residual Czech PIL Act regime, an award set aside in the relevant state is expressly refused recognition or enforcement.

Where set-aside proceedings are merely pending at the seat, Article VI New York Convention permits the Czech court to adjourn the enforcement decision and, where appropriate, require security. Suspension is therefore discretionary rather than automatic.

Czech law adopts a restrictive rather than absolute concept of state immunity. Immunity may protect sovereign acts and assets used for sovereign governmental functions, while commercial conduct and commercial assets are treated differently in accordance with Czech private international law and applicable international law.

The Czech framework is generally supportive of recognition and enforcement and does not permit a rehearing of the merits.

The public-policy exception is interpreted narrowly. The relevant question is whether recognition or enforcement would manifestly conflict with fundamental principles of the Czech legal order, rather than whether the arbitral tribunal merely committed an ordinary error of law or fact.

Czech law uses the concept of public order (veřejný pořádek) rather than creating a separate statutory category formally called “international public policy”. Section 4 PIL Act provides that a foreign award cannot be recognised where its effects would manifestly conflict with Czech public order.

Czech arbitration legislation does not provide for class arbitration or representative group arbitration.

The Czech Republic introduced a statutory collective civil-procedure regime under Act No 179/2024 Coll., but that regime concerns collective proceedings before state courts rather than arbitration.

Multiparty arbitration, joinder and consolidation may be available on a consensual basis under institutional rules, but this is not equivalent to an opt-in or opt-out class-arbitration mechanism.

Czech advocates are governed by the Advocacy Act and the professional and ethical rules of the Czech Bar Association. These regulate matters including professional independence, conflicts of interest, confidentiality and professional conduct. The Advocacy Act is currently in a version effective from 1 January 2026.

Arbitrators are subject to the Arbitration Act’s statutory duties concerning impartiality, disclosure and confidentiality as well as the fundamental requirement of equal treatment of the parties.

Institutional rules and ethical codes may impose additional standards. International soft-law instruments may also be used as guidance, but are not automatically binding Czech law.

Czech arbitration legislation contains no specific comprehensive statutory regime governing third-party funding of commercial arbitration.

The Arbitration Act does not generally:

• prohibit third-party funding;
• regulate funder remuneration;
• impose a universal duty to disclose the existence or identity of a funder; or
• create a specific security-for-costs regime triggered by third-party funding.

Funding arrangements are therefore principally subject to general private-law rules, applicable professional obligations and conflict-of-interest considerations.

The Arbitration Act does not give Czech courts a general power to consolidate separate arbitral proceedings, nor does it create a universal statutory consolidation regime for ad hoc arbitration.

Consolidation may instead arise from the parties’ agreement or applicable institutional rules. The Arbitration Court’s current Rules contain a consolidation mechanism for defined circumstances involving, for example, party consent, the same arbitration agreement or compatible arbitration agreements and sufficiently connected proceedings.

The starting point remains consent.

Under Section 2(5) Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement also binds a party’s legal successors unless that effect was expressly excluded.

A third party may therefore become bound, for example, where:

• it validly accedes to the arbitration agreement;
• it expressly consents to joinder;
• it becomes a legal successor to a party; or
• another recognised rule of private law transfers the relevant rights and obligations.

A third party is not ordinarily bound merely because it is affiliated with a signatory, has an economic interest in the dispute or belongs to the same corporate group.

Czech courts likewise have no general power to impose an arbitration agreement on a foreign third party without consent, succession or another recognised legal basis. Where the foreign third party is a state or state entity, applicable rules on sovereign immunity must additionally be considered.