Publication details
Trvání věcné příslušnosti (v řízení o insolvenční odpůrčí žalobě)
| Title in English | Duration of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (in the Proceeding of an Insolvency Claim for Avoidance) |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2024 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Časopis pro pravní vědu a praxi |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| web | Open access článku |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CPVP2024-3-1 |
| Keywords | Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Court; the Principle of Duration of Jurisdiction; Insolvency Claim for Avoidance; Matter in Dispute; Procedural Claim |
| Description | In the article, the author critically attacks the established practice of the Supreme Court, according to which a court with subject matter jurisdiction, whose jurisdiction was undoubtedly given at the time of the beginning of the proceeding, may become jurisdictionally incompetent in the course of the proceeding as a result of a mere change in the legal assessment of the case. The examples of German, Swiss and Austrian legal doctrine, regulation and practice show that the principle of the duration of jurisdiction, which applies in the Czech Republic on the basis of the second sentence of Article 11(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, prevents such a result. All the way to the end of the proceeding, only those circumstances which existed at the time of its initiation are decisive for the determination of subject matter (and local) jurisdiction. If the court has at the beginning of the proceeding, on the basis of the value or the legal nature of the matter in dispute, subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine a particular case, its jurisdiction cannot be changed merely because the court's legal assessment of the case has changed after the completion of the examination of the evidence. The jurisdiction of the court is based purely on the pleading and the pleaded facts or the substantive assessment of the pleaded facts (i. e. not on the established facts). The answer to the question which court has (subject matter) jurisdiction to hear and determine a case must be apparent from the outset of the proceeding and cannot, in principle, change during its course. This is mainly the result of the principle of procedural economy, the arguments connected with it and the procedural definition of the matter in dispute, or, to put it more simply, the principle of the duration of jurisdiction. |
| Related projects: |