From a Czech law perspective, jurisdiction in divorce proceedings with an international element is primarily governed by Article 3 of Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (“Brussels IIb Regulation”). The Regulation provides a number of alternative grounds of jurisdiction based principally on the spouses’ habitual residence and, alternatively, their common nationality.

Accordingly, the Czech courts have jurisdiction, inter alia, where both spouses are habitually resident in the Czech Republic; the spouses were last habitually resident in the Czech Republic and one of them still resides there; the respondent is habitually resident in the Czech Republic; or, in the case of a joint application, either spouse is habitually resident in the Czech Republic.

Jurisdiction may also be based on the applicant’s habitual residence in the Czech Republic where the applicant has resided there for at least one year immediately before the application, or for at least six months immediately before the application if the applicant is also a Czech national. Czech courts also have jurisdiction where both spouses are Czech nationals.

Where no court of an EU Member State has jurisdiction under the Brussels IIb Regulation and its rules permit recourse to national jurisdiction, Czech residual jurisdiction is determined under Act No. 91/2012 Coll., on Private International Law (“Czech PIL Act”). In particular, section 47 provides additional rules on the jurisdiction of Czech courts in matrimonial matters. The Czech PIL Act is subsidiary to directly applicable EU law and applicable international treaties.

Jurisdiction in relation to the matrimonial property regime must be assessed separately. For the Czech Republic, this is governed principally by Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016, implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes (“Regulation (EU) 2016/1103”). The Czech Republic participates in that enhanced cooperation.
Where proceedings for divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment are pending before the courts of a Member State, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 generally confers jurisdiction over matrimonial property matters arising in connection with those proceedings on the courts of the same Member State, although in certain cases this ancillary jurisdiction is subject to the spouses’ agreement. If jurisdiction cannot be established on this basis, Article 6 provides, in hierarchical order, for jurisdiction based on the spouses’ common habitual residence, their last common habitual residence provided that one spouse still resides there, the respondent’s habitual residence, or, failing those grounds, the spouses’ common nationality. The Regulation also permits jurisdiction agreements in the circumstances specified in Article 7 and contains subsidiary jurisdiction and forum necessitatis rules in Articles 10 and 11.

The relevant European instruments therefore rely primarily on the autonomous EU concept of habitual residence, rather than the Czech domestic concept of permanent residence. Nationality is relevant as an alternative connecting factor, particularly where both spouses are Czech nationals and, in certain circumstances, where the applicant is a Czech national and has been habitually resident in the Czech Republic for at least six months before filing. Domicile, as understood in certain common-law jurisdictions, is not a general jurisdictional connecting factor for proceedings in the Czech Republic under these Regulations.

In cases with an international element, Czech courts do not apply any discretionary test. International jurisdiction must be established under the relevant EU regulation, international treaty or, where neither applies, the Czech Private International Law Act. In matrimonial matters falling within the scope of the Brussels IIb Regulation, jurisdiction is therefore determined by the jurisdictional grounds set out in the Regulation rather than by an assessment of which country appears to be the more appropriate or convenient forum. The Brussels IIb Regulation establishes uniform jurisdiction rules for divorce, legal separation and annulment in cross-border cases.

The requirements must be satisfied at the time the application is filed with the court. Once the jurisdiction of the Czech courts has been established, it is not affected by any subsequent changes in the circumstances that initially gave rise to that jurisdiction. This principle is known as the perpetuatio fori.

Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and the same parties are brought before courts in different EU Member States, the rules on lis pendens under the Brussels IIb Regulation apply. This may require the Czech court, if second seised, to stay its proceedings pending determination of the jurisdiction of the court first seised and, where that jurisdiction is established, to decline jurisdiction in its favour.

It is important to distinguish proceedings concerning the divorce itself from related proceedings concerning matrimonial property, maintenance and parental responsibility. Each of these matters is subject to its own jurisdictional regime and the existence of parallel divorce proceedings does not necessarily determine jurisdiction in the related matter. In particular, Brussels IIb does not apply to maintenance obligations. Matrimonial property matters are governed separately by Regulation (EU) 2016/1103, as explained under question 1.

Czech courts do not apply a forum non conveniens test when determining jurisdiction under the Brussels IIb Regulation. However, where parallel proceedings involving the same matter and the same parties are pending in a third State, section 8(2) of the Czech PIL Act permits, but does not require, the Czech court to stay proceedings commenced later in justified cases, provided that the resulting foreign decision can be expected to be recognised in the Czech Republic.

Yes. Jurisdiction and applicable law are separate questions under Czech private international law. The fact that a Czech court has jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that Czech substantive law applies.

This distinction is particularly relevant because the Czech Republic does not participate in the enhanced cooperation established by Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (“Rome III”) concerning the law applicable to divorce and legal separation. Accordingly, where a Czech court hears divorce proceedings with an international element, the law applicable to the divorce is determined under the Czech Private International Law Act and any applicable international treaty rather than under Rome III.

Different conflict-of-law rules apply to the financial consequences of marriage. In particular, the law applicable to the matrimonial property regime is determined, where applicable, under Regulation (EU) 2016/1103. As a general rule, the Regulation permits spouses to choose certain laws connected with their habitual residence or nationality; in the absence of a valid choice, it contains its own hierarchical connecting factors. The applicable law governing maintenance, parental responsibility and succession must again be determined independently under the relevant EU instruments, international conventions or Czech conflict-of-law rules.

Accordingly, in an international family case before a Czech court it is necessary to determine the applicable law separately for each individual issue. A Czech court may therefore have jurisdiction over the divorce while applying foreign law to one or more financial or other consequences of the relationship.

Footnote: Rome III establishes enhanced cooperation concerning the law applicable to divorce and legal separation. The Czech Republic is not among the participating Member States.

Under Czech law, divorce is not primarily fault-based. The principal substantive ground for divorce is the deep, permanent and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, where the marital relationship cannot reasonably be expected to be restored. The relevant substantive rules are set out in the Czech Civil Code, Act No. 89/2012 Coll. (“Czech Civil Code”), in particular in Sections 755–758.

In practical terms, Czech law distinguishes between an agreed divorce, where the statutory conditions for an agreed divorce are satisfied, and a divorce under the general rules. In the case of an agreed divorce, the spouses make a joint application or one spouse joins the other’s application, and they share the same position as to the breakdown of the marriage and their intention to divorce. If the statutory conditions are met, the breakdown is deemed to satisfy the requirements for divorce and the court does not investigate its causes.

Where the requirements for an agreed divorce are not met, the court proceeds under the general rules and determines whether the marriage is deeply, permanently and irretrievably broken down and cannot reasonably be expected to be restored. The court generally does not investigate the causes of the breakdown unless the non-applicant spouse claims that the divorce should be refused on the specific ground set out in Section 755(2)(b) of the Civil Code.

Where the spouses have minor children, the divorce proceedings are closely connected with the proceedings concerning the arrangements for the children for the period following the divorce. Under Czech procedural law, where the spouses have a common minor child, the proceedings concerning the divorce are generally joined with the proceedings concerning the child’s arrangements for the period after the divorce.

The duration of divorce proceedings varies significantly depending on the circumstances of the particular case, including whether the spouses agree on the divorce and on matters concerning their minor children, and whether any related issues remain disputed. There is no fixed statutory overall time limit within which divorce proceedings must be completed. Where minor children are involved, the time required may also depend on the complexity of the proceedings concerning their arrangements.

Where the divorce application is filed by one spouse, it is formally served on the other spouse by the court seised of the proceedings. The application must contain sufficient information to identify the parties and enable service, including the other spouse’s name and address, where known.

Spouses may file a joint application for divorce. Alternatively, one spouse may file the application and the other spouse may subsequently join it. A joint application does not, in itself, mean that the requirements for an agreed divorce are satisfied. To qualify for the simplified agreed-divorce procedure, the spouses must also fulfil the other statutory conditions.

Foreign marriages

As a general rule, a marriage validly concluded abroad may produce legal effects in the Czech Republic. In cases involving an international element, however, the validity of the marriage must first be determined under the applicable conflict-of-law rules, including the rules governing the parties’ capacity to marry, the substantive conditions for the validity of the marriage and the formal requirements for its conclusion. Under Czech private international law, the capacity of each person to marry and the substantive conditions for the validity of the marriage are generally governed by the law of that person’s nationality, while the formal validity of the marriage is governed by the law of the place where the marriage was concluded. The application of foreign law is subject to the Czech public policy exception.

Recognition of a marriage as a matter of civil status should be distinguished from the registration of a foreign marriage in the Czech civil status records. The fact that a marriage has not yet been registered in the Czech civil status records does not, in itself, determine whether the marriage is valid or legally exists. Registration and recognition therefore constitute separate legal issues.

Foreign civil partnerships / civil unions

Foreign registered partnerships and comparable civil unions require a separate conflict-of-law analysis. Under Czech private international law, registered partnerships and comparable relationships are generally governed by the law of the state in which the relationship is or was concluded.

A foreign legal status should not automatically be equated either with marriage or with the corresponding Czech-law institution merely because it performs a broadly comparable function.

Customary marriages

A customary marriage concluded abroad may be recognised in the Czech Republic if the parties had capacity to marry and the substantive conditions of validity were satisfied under the law applicable to each party, and if the marriage complied with the formal requirements of the law of the place where it was concluded.

Religious marriages

A marriage celebrated abroad in a religious form may likewise be recognised in the Czech Republic where the religious form results in a legally valid marriage under the law applicable to its formation. Conversely, a purely religious ceremony which does not create a legally recognised marriage under the applicable law will not ordinarily acquire civil-law effects in the Czech Republic merely because the parties regard themselves as married.

In all cases, the application of foreign law and the recognition of a foreign legal status remain subject to the Czech public policy exception. Under Czech private international law, foreign law is not applied, and a foreign legal relationship or status may not be recognised, where its effects would manifestly be contrary to public policy.

Czech law does not currently permit marriage between persons of the same sex. Since 1 January 2025, however, two persons of the same sex may enter into a partnership, defined as a permanent union concluded in the same manner as marriage. Unless the law provides otherwise, the provisions governing marriage and the rights and obligations of spouses apply to partners mutatis mutandis. Partnership therefore provides same-sex couples with a legal status broadly aligned with marriage, although certain differences remain, particularly in relation to parenthood.

As regards same-sex marriages validly concluded abroad, the applicable approach depends on the circumstances in which the marriage was concluded. Under EU law, a Member State may not refuse to recognise a marriage between two EU citizens of the same sex that was lawfully concluded in another Member State in the exercise of their right to move and reside freely, solely because its domestic law does not permit same-sex marriage. This does not require the Czech Republic to introduce same-sex marriage into its domestic law, but the marital status acquired in another Member State must be recognised where required to ensure the effective exercise of rights conferred by EU law. Where transcription of a foreign marriage certificate is the only means available under domestic law to secure such recognition, that transcription may not be refused merely because the spouses are of the same sex.

Outside circumstances in which recognition is required by EU law, the treatment of a same-sex marriage or union concluded abroad must be assessed under the applicable rules of Czech private international law and any relevant international treaties. Recognition of the parties’ personal status should be distinguished from the determination of particular legal consequences arising from that status. Issues such as property relations, maintenance, succession, parental responsibility and parenthood may be governed by different conflict-of-law rules or by separate EU or international instruments.

The application of foreign law and the recognition of a foreign legal status may, in principle, be subject to the Czech public policy exception. However, that exception must be applied consistently with EU law and cannot justify refusing recognition in circumstances in which such recognition is required by EU law.

Under Czech law, the financial consequences of divorce primarily concern the division of the spouses’ community property (společné jmění manželů, generally referred to as “SJM”) and, where the statutory requirements are met, post-divorce spousal maintenance. These are separate claims and are not automatically determined as part of the divorce proceedings. The Czech Civil Code specifically provides that, upon divorce, the property rights and obligations of the former spouses are to be settled by agreement or, failing agreement, on the application of either former spouse by the court.

In matrimonial property proceedings, the court may allocate individual assets and liabilities forming part of the former community property to either spouse and determine the corresponding financial equalisation between them. Czech law starts from the principle that the spouses’ shares in the matrimonial property are equal, subject to the statutory criteria governing its division. Each spouse is also generally required to reimburse what was spent from the community property on his or her separate property and may claim reimbursement of what he or she invested from separate property into the community property.

Importantly, Czech law does not operate a separate system of divorce-related pension sharing orders comparable to that existing in some common-law jurisdictions.

A former spouse may additionally be ordered to pay post-divorce maintenance where the statutory requirements are satisfied. The spouses may agree on the amount and method of maintenance and may also agree that maintenance is replaced by a lump-sum payment, in which case the maintenance entitlement terminates upon payment of that lump sum. If there is no agreement, the former spouse seeking maintenance may apply to court.

Accordingly, unlike in jurisdictions operating a broad discretionary system of financial remedies following divorce, Czech courts principally determine individual statutory claims relating to matrimonial property and spousal maintenance rather than making a single overall financial order designed to redistribute the spouses’ assets and income.

The division of assets following divorce depends primarily on the matrimonial property regime applicable to the spouses. Where the Czech statutory community property regime applies, the starting point upon the dissolution of the community property is that the spouses’ shares are equal.

However, equality of shares is not the only relevant consideration. Under section 742 of the Czech Civil Code, the court must also deal with investments between separate and community property. The value of such contributions is increased or reduced to reflect the change in value of the relevant asset between the date of the expenditure and the date on which the community property was reduced, cancelled or dissolved. Further the court must take account of the needs of dependent children, how each spouse cared for the family, children and family household, and how each spouse contributed to the acquisition and preservation of the assets forming part of the community property. The legislation also expressly requires account to be taken of domestic violence or intentional criminal conduct committed by one spouse against the other, including its nature, seriousness, duration and circumstances.

Thus, although equal division is the statutory starting point, the court is not confined to a purely mathematical division of the assets. The statutory criteria permit the circumstances of the marriage and the spouses’ respective contributions to be taken into consideration when determining the final settlement.

The spouses are free to settle their matrimonial property by agreement. If they fail to do so, either spouse may apply to the court for judicial settlement. There is, however, an important three-year period following the dissolution, cancellation or reduction of the community property regime. If within that period the former community property has neither been settled by agreement nor made the subject of court proceedings, the statutory presumption of settlement applies: tangible movable property generally belongs to the person exclusively using it as owner for his or her own, family or household needs; other movable and immovable property is deemed to be held by the former spouses in co-ownership with equal shares, while other property rights, receivables and debts are deemed to belong to, or be borne by, both former spouses in equal shares. This statutory settlement does not, as such, prejudice the rights of third-party creditors.

Czech law allows the courts to grant interim relief where the statutory requirements for temporary judicial protection are satisfied. The applicable procedural framework depends on the nature of the underlying proceedings and the relief sought. Proceedings in matrimonial matters and proceedings concerning minor children are primarily governed by Act No. 292/2013 Coll., on Special Court Proceedings (“Special Court Proceedings Act”), with the Code of Civil Procedure (“Civil Procedure Code”) applying subsidiarily where the special legislation does not provide otherwise.

As regards maintenance, a distinction must be made between maintenance between spouses during marriage, maintenance between former spouses following divorce, and maintenance for children.

During marriage, spouses owe each other a statutory maintenance obligation. Its purpose is to ensure that both spouses enjoy, in principle, the same material and cultural standard of living. The maintenance obligation between spouses takes precedence over the maintenance obligation between parents and children. The commencement or continuation of divorce proceedings does not, in itself, terminate the spouses’ mutual maintenance obligation, which generally continues until the marriage is dissolved.

Following divorce, a former spouse may claim maintenance only if the statutory conditions for post-divorce maintenance are satisfied. In particular, the claimant must generally be unable to support himself or herself, that inability must originate in or be connected with the marriage, and it must be reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, to require the other former spouse to provide maintenance. The court takes into account, among other matters, the duration of the marriage and the period that has elapsed since the divorce, the claimant’s ability to obtain appropriate employment, the possibility of supporting himself or herself through the proper management of his or her own assets, and the extent to which the claimant contributed to the care of the family and the family household.

The former spouses may agree on the amount and method of maintenance. They may also agree that the maintenance entitlement will be replaced by a lump-sum payment, in which case the entitlement terminates upon payment of the agreed amount. In the absence of an agreement, the former spouse seeking maintenance may apply to the court. The applicable statutory conditions and the duration of any maintenance obligation depend on the particular legal basis of the claim. The general form of post-divorce maintenance must therefore be distinguished from the more extensive maintenance available in the specific circumstances prescribed by Czech law.

Both parents owe a maintenance obligation to their children. The obligation is not limited to minor children as such, but generally continues until the child is capable of supporting himself or herself. When determining the amount of maintenance, the court considers the child’s justified needs and the parents’ abilities, possibilities and financial circumstances, together with the extent of each parent’s personal care for the child. The child is entitled, in principle, to share in the parents’ standard of living.

In proceedings concerning a minor child, child maintenance may be determined or adjusted together with the arrangements for the child’s care. Since 1 January 2026, proceedings concerning the divorce of parents of a common minor child and proceedings concerning the child’s post-divorce arrangements are generally conducted jointly, although the court may separate them where joint proceedings would be inappropriate. In the joint proceedings, the court first determines the child’s circumstances.

Where immediate temporary regulation is necessary, the applicable form of interim protection depends on the subject matter. In ordinary disputes concerning maintenance between spouses or former spouses, interim relief may be granted under the applicable rules governing preliminary measures. In proceedings concerning minor children, however, Czech law must distinguish between different forms of temporary protection.

Since 1 January 2026, the ordinary preliminary measure previously used for the temporary regulation of a minor child’s circumstances has been replaced by a specific provisional decision under the Special Court Proceedings Act. A provisional decision may be made before or during the proceedings on the merits where temporary regulation is in the child’s best interests and the conditions for the special emergency measure are not met. The participants, including the child, must generally be given an opportunity to express their views, and the child must be represented by a court-appointed guardian for those proceedings. The special emergency preliminary measure applicable in cases requiring urgent protection of the child remains available separately.

The appropriate interim mechanism, its procedural requirements and the extent of the temporary relief must therefore be assessed by reference to the particular claim, including whether the application concerns spousal maintenance, post-divorce maintenance, child maintenance or another aspect of the minor child’s circumstances.

Czech law distinguishes significantly between maintenance during marriage and maintenance following divorce. During marriage, the spouses have a mutual maintenance obligation at a level intended to ensure that both enjoy, in principle, the same material and cultural standard of living.

The position changes upon divorce. Under section 760 of the Czech Civil Code, a divorced spouse who is unable to support himself or herself, where that inability originates in the marriage or circumstances connected with it, may claim maintenance from the former spouse if it can reasonably and fairly be required of that spouse. The legislation expressly refers, in particular, to the claimant’s age or health at the time of divorce or when the care of a common child ended.

In determining whether maintenance should be awarded and its amount, the court considers, among other matters, the duration of the marriage and the time elapsed since divorce, whether the claimant failed to obtain appropriate employment despite there being no serious obstacle to doing so, whether he or she could provide for his or her needs by proper management of his or her own property, his or her contribution to the family household during marriage, and certain serious misconduct towards the former spouse or a person close to him or her.

There is no statutory mathematical formula for calculating ordinary post-divorce maintenance. Its amount and duration therefore depend on the individual circumstances and the statutory criteria. The parties can agree both the amount and manner of payment and may replace continuing maintenance by a lump-sum payment, upon payment of which the maintenance entitlement terminates. If they cannot agree, the spouse requiring maintenance may ask the court to determine the obligation.

Czech law also provides a special, more generous form of post-divorce maintenance. A spouse who did not predominantly cause the breakdown of the marriage or did not consent to the divorce and suffered serious harm as a result of the divorce may, subject to the statutory conditions, seek maintenance at a level which essentially preserves the same standard of living between the former spouses. Such enhanced maintenance may, however, be awarded only for a period appropriate to the circumstances and for no more than three years following divorce. A former spouse who committed domestic violence against the other spouse is excluded from this enhanced entitlement.

The ordinary maintenance entitlement and this enhanced form should therefore be carefully distinguished: the three-year maximum applies to the special enhanced claim under section 762, not generally to every claim for post-divorce maintenance under section 760.

The foreign decision must first be characterised, as matrimonial-property and maintenance decisions are subject to different recognition and enforcement regimes.

A decision concerning matrimonial property matters issued in a Member State participating in Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 is recognised in the Czech Republic without any special procedure under Article 36 of the Regulation, provided that it falls within the Regulation’s material, territorial and temporal scope. Enforcement is subject to the conditions set out in Articles 42–57. In particular, the party seeking enforcement must obtain a declaration of enforceability and submit the documents specified by the Regulation, including a copy of the decision and the relevant certificate issued pursuant to Article 45. The Regulation applies only to matters falling within its scope and, in general, applies to proceedings instituted, authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered, and court settlements approved or concluded on or after 29 January 2019 (Article 69).

Maintenance decisions are governed, within the EU, principally by Regulation (EC) No 4/2009. Where the decision originates in a Member State bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (“2007 Hague Protocol”), recognition and enforcement take place without the need for a declaration of enforceability or registration for enforcement (Articles 17–22). The creditor will generally need to provide a copy of the decision together with the relevant extract or certificate and, where required, a translation. Decisions originating in Member States not bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol are subject to the separate recognition and enforcement regime set out in Articles 23–38 of the Regulation. The Regulation also provides for cooperation and assistance through the designated Central Authorities.

Outside the scope of the applicable EU regimes, recognition and enforcement depend first on any applicable international treaty, including, where its conditions are met, the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. In the absence of an applicable international instrument, recognition and enforcement are governed by Czech PIL Act.

Once a foreign decision is recognised and enforceable in the Czech Republic, enforcement takes place under Czech enforcement law. Depending on the nature of the obligation and the debtor’s assets, enforcement may be carried out through judicial enforcement under the Civil Procedure Code or through an enforcement officer under Act No. 120/2001 Coll., the Enforcement Code. Available enforcement measures may include deductions from wages or other income, attachment of funds held in bank accounts or other receivables, and, where the statutory requirements are met, the sale of movable or immovable property.

Yes. The fact that a marriage was dissolved abroad does not, in itself, prevent former spouses from subsequently seeking the settlement of matrimonial property or spousal maintenance in the Czech Republic. Whether a Czech court can hear the claim, and whether it will succeed, depends principally on the following:

The jurisdiction of the Czech courts must be assessed separately for matrimonial property and maintenance claims. Where Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 applies, jurisdiction in matrimonial property matters is determined primarily by reference to the former spouses’ common habitual residence, their last common habitual residence if one of them still resides there, the respondent’s habitual residence and their common nationality. The grounds in Article 6 apply in a prescribed order; they are not freely interchangeable alternatives. Jurisdiction may also arise, for example, from a choice-of-court agreement that satisfies the Regulation’s requirements. For maintenance claims, Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 provides, in particular, for jurisdiction in the Member State where either the maintenance creditor or the respondent is habitually resident.

It is necessary to assess the recognition of the overseas divorce in the Czech Republic and establish whether a foreign court has already determined the particular matrimonial property or maintenance claim. If that decision has res judicata effect in the Czech Republic, the same claim cannot be determined again. However, an existing maintenance decision may be modified where the applicable rules permit, subject to a separate assessment of jurisdiction to make that modification.

Jurisdiction of a Czech court does not automatically mean that Czech substantive law applies. The relevant conflict-of-laws rules may require the Czech court to apply foreign law. The applicable law determines, in particular, whether the claim exists, the conditions governing entitlement and the extent of any award. A valid choice of law by the spouses may also be relevant to matrimonial property matters.

Yes. Czech law provides for a statutory matrimonial property regime known as community property. Unless the spouses validly agree otherwise, this is the default property regime applying during marriage. The relevant provisions are contained in section 708 et seq. of the Czech Civil Code.

In broad terms, the statutory community includes property acquired by either or both spouses during the marriage, subject to statutory exceptions. These include, in particular, property acquired by inheritance or gift by one spouse and property serving the personal needs of one spouse. The community may also include debts incurred during marriage, again subject to the exceptions prescribed by law. Unlike an ordinary co-ownership arrangement, during the existence of SJM the spouses do not hold defined percentage shares in individual assets forming part of the community.

The spouses are free to modify the statutory matrimonial property regime by agreement. They may, inter alia, agree on a separation of property regime, reserve the creation of community property until the termination of the marriage, or modify the scope of the statutory community. Czech law therefore gives spouses considerable autonomy to organise their matrimonial property arrangements.

In cases with an international element, a foreign matrimonial property regime may be relevant and recognised in the Czech Republic. For marriages falling within its temporal and material scope, the applicable law is determined under Regulation (EU) 2016/1103. The Regulation governs matrimonial property regimes of international couples and contains rules on jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition and enforcement.

Accordingly, the mere fact that assets are situated in the Czech Republic does not necessarily mean that the Czech statutory SJM regime applies to those assets. The law governing the matrimonial property regime must first be determined under the applicable conflict-of-law rules.

Under Czech law, spouses as well as future spouses have considerable freedom to arrange their matrimonial property regime by agreement. A matrimonial property agreement may therefore be concluded before or during the marriage and may replace or modify the statutory community property regime.

Czech matrimonial property agreements are binding provided that the statutory formal and substantive requirements are met. Through such an agreement, spouses may in particular alter the scope of community property or opt for a different matrimonial property regime instead of the default statutory regime. The contractual arrangement may therefore have substantial consequences for the classification and subsequent division of assets following divorce.

In a case with an international element it is necessary, however, to distinguish between a matrimonial property agreement and a choice-of-law agreement. Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 expressly defines a matrimonial property agreement as an agreement between spouses or future spouses by which they organise their matrimonial property regime. The Regulation also provides conflict-of-law rules governing international matrimonial property regimes.

A pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement concluded abroad is therefore not disregarded merely because it was entered into outside the Czech Republic. Its substantive and formal validity and its effects must be assessed under the applicable private international law rules, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 where that Regulation applies.

The practical distinction is therefore not simply between a “Czech” and “foreign” nuptial agreement. The correct analysis is to establish which law governs the matrimonial property regime, whether a valid choice of law has been made, and whether the agreement itself satisfies the applicable substantive and formal requirements.

Under Czech law, both parents have a legal duty to maintain their child. The scope of the maintenance obligation is determined by the needs of the child and the means and circumstances of the parents. The child’s standard of living should, in principle, be the same as that of the parents; this consideration takes precedence over the assessment of the child’s reasonable needs.

The maintenance obligation is not dependent solely on the parents’ income. The court considers the overall financial circumstances of the parents and the needs and circumstances of the child. Personal care for the child is also relevant when determining how each parent contributes towards the child’s maintenance.

There is no statutory formula producing an automatically binding amount of child maintenance. Although indicative tools may be used in practice, the court must determine maintenance by reference to the circumstances of the individual case. The parents may also agree on maintenance, subject to the rules applicable to agreements concerning minor children.

Importantly, under Czech law child maintenance does not automatically terminate when the child reaches the age of 18. The decisive criterion is whether the child is capable of supporting himself or herself. Consequently, maintenance may continue into adulthood, in particular where the child continues genuine education or where other circumstances prevent the child from becoming self-supporting.

Upon reaching majority, the child generally pursues the claim in his or her own name and maintenance is payable directly to him or her. The circumstances relevant to the maintenance obligation may change over time and an existing maintenance arrangement or order may therefore subsequently require adjustment where the legally relevant circumstances change.

Czech family law does not operate a broad discretionary system of separate capital or property orders for children comparable to that available in certain common-law jurisdictions. Financial provision for a child is principally addressed through the statutory maintenance obligation of the parents.

The concept of maintenance is, however, broader than merely providing a minimum amount necessary for food or basic subsistence. The child’s justified needs and the parents’ overall means and circumstances are relevant to determining the extent of the obligation. Accordingly, a child’s housing, education, health-related expenses and other reasonable needs may be reflected in the level and structure of maintenance where appropriate.

Although these remain maintenance measures rather than separate capital orders, the court may include provision for savings where the statutory conditions are met (section 917 of the Civil Code). In cases deserving special consideration, it may also require an advance payment towards future maintenance (section 918 of the Civil Code).

Persons who permanently live together are presumed to be close persons under section 22(1) of the Civil Code, which may have legal consequences in areas where the law attaches rights or obligations to that relationship.

Czech law however does not provide for a specific legal status equivalent to marriage for unmarried cohabiting couples merely by reason of their cohabitation. Unmarried cohabitation does not create a matrimonial property regime comparable to the statutory community property regime applicable to married spouses. The property relations between unmarried partners are therefore governed primarily by the ordinary rules of civil law, including ownership, co-ownership and contractual obligations. Partners may regulate their financial affairs by agreement, subject to the mandatory rules of Czech law.

Cohabitation may nevertheless have legal relevance in individual areas of Czech law. In particular, property acquired by one partner does not automatically become jointly owned merely because it was acquired during the relationship. Where property is acquired jointly, the parties’ rights are governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership and by any relevant agreement.

Inheritance is another important area. Unmarried cohabitation does not give a partner the same intestate succession rights as a spouse. However, a person who has lived with the deceased in a common household for at least one year before the death may qualify as a statutory heir under the second or third class of intestate succession, provided the statutory conditions are met, including having cared for the common household or being dependent on the deceased for maintenance. The existence of a common household is assessed on the basis of the actual circumstances of the relationship.

Unmarried partners may also regulate succession by means of a will or inheritance contract, subject to the mandatory rules protecting compulsory heirs.

Unlike married spouses, unmarried cohabitants do not benefit from a statutory matrimonial property regime and there is no general statutory mechanism under which their assets are redistributed simply because their relationship has ended. Financial claims following separation must therefore be based on ordinary private-law grounds, rather than on the former existence of the relationship itself.

Where the former partners jointly own an asset, their relationship is governed by the rules of co-ownership. Where the partners jointly own property, either may seek the termination and settlement of co-ownership, subject to the statutory restrictions.

The fact that parties lived together as life partners does not in itself determine their respective property rights. Czech case law demonstrates that disputes following the breakdown of an unmarried relationship may concern, for example, contributions or investments made by one partner into property owned jointly with the other partner, with the legal consequences being assessed according to the civil-law rules applicable to the particular transaction and property relationship. Claims may also arise in unjust enrichment where one partner has contributed to the acquisition or improvement of property owned exclusively by the other and the legal basis for that contribution subsequently falls away. Whether such a claim arises depends on the circumstances and the legal basis of the payment; separation does not automatically make all contributions recoverable.

Similarly, there is no equivalent of a divorce court’s general power to redistribute property between former unmarried partners merely because one has greater financial needs or because the relationship lasted for a particular period. Accordingly, there is no equivalent for cohabitants of the statutory division of community property applicable upon divorce.

The practical position therefore depends considerably on legal title to the property, the existence and terms of any agreement between the partners, their respective contributions and the legal basis on which those contributions were made.

As a general principle, the legal position of a child and the existence of parental responsibility do not depend upon whether his or her parents were married. In that sense, divorce and separation of unmarried parents do not create fundamentally different systems of parental responsibility. What is decisive is legal parenthood and the scope of parental responsibility, not the marital relationship between the parents. The specific establishment of legal parenthood may, however, have to be considered separately where the parents were unmarried.

Where parents separate and cannot agree on the exercise of their parental responsibility, the court may determine the arrangements concerning the child. Any restriction or deprivation of parental responsibility requires a court decision; it does not arise automatically merely because the parents separate or because the child lives predominantly with one of them.

The Czech Constitutional Court has recently emphasised that parental responsibility comprises not merely parents’ rights but also their obligations towards the child, including the right and obligation to maintain contact with the child. Consequently, arrangements concerning contact must be assessed from the perspective of the child’s best interests rather than simply as a private entitlement of the parent.

In cases involving an international element to which EU law applies, jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility is governed primarily by Brussels IIb Regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction, commonly referred to as the Brussels IIb Regulation.

As a general rule, jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility lies with the courts of the Member State where the child is habitually resident at the time the court is seised (Article 7). The Regulation is based on the principle of proximity and the best interests of the child. It nevertheless provides specific jurisdictional rules for particular situations, including the lawful relocation of a child, wrongful removal or retention, choice of court, transfer of jurisdiction and urgent provisional or protective measures.

For these purposes, “parental responsibility” is a broad concept covering rights and duties relating to the person and property of the child, including rights of custody and access. Under Czech law, parental responsibility includes, in particular, care for and protection of the child, maintaining contact with the child, the child’s upbringing and education, determining the child’s place of residence, and representing the child and managing the child’s assets.

The jurisdictional rules applicable to parental responsibility are independent of those applicable to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment. Accordingly, the fact that the Czech courts have jurisdiction over the parents’ divorce does not in itself establish jurisdiction over parental responsibility. Jurisdiction concerning the child must be assessed separately under the rules applicable to parental responsibility, principally by reference to the child’s habitual residence and the relevant exceptions under the Brussels IIb Regulation.

Where the Brussels IIb Regulation does not determine jurisdiction, the applicable international instruments must be considered. In particular, the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (“1996 Hague Children Protection Convention”) may apply in cases involving a third State. Where neither the Brussels IIb Regulation nor an applicable international convention determines jurisdiction, jurisdiction is determined under the relevant rules of Czech private international law.

The breakdown of the parents’ relationship does not, in itself, affect either parent’s parental responsibility. Where the parents do not live together, each parent is required to facilitate the other parent’s care of the child and to refrain from conduct that disrupts the child’s relationship with the other parent. The child has a right to equivalent care by both parents.

If the parents cannot agree on the arrangements for their child, the court may determine the extent of care to be provided by each parent. Since 1 January 2026, Czech law no longer distinguishes between statutory forms of sole, alternating and joint custody. The court may therefore establish equal or unequal periods of care, depending on the circumstances of the individual case. It may also determine conditions governing the exercise of care and, where necessary in the child’s interests, regulate indirect contact and the provision of information during periods when the child is in the other parent’s care. Where the parents agree, the court may order that the child remains in the care of both parents without specifying each parent’s periods of care.

The best interests of the child are the overriding principle. The court must assess the individual circumstances of the case, including the child’s relationship with each parent, the parents’ ability to meet the child’s needs and the child’s own views. There is no automatic entitlement to a 50/50 division of care.

The child’s right to be heard forms an integral part of the decision-making process. The court must provide the child with information necessary to form and communicate a view and must give that view appropriate consideration having regard to the child’s age and maturity. A child aged 12 or over is presumed to have sufficient capacity to form and communicate an independent view. The child may be heard directly by the court or indirectly, for example through the child’s guardian (typically OSPOD) or, where appropriate, through expert evidence. The child’s wishes are relevant but are not automatically determinative; they form part of the overall assessment of the child’s best interests.

Under Czech law, determining the child’s place of residence forms part of parental responsibility. Consequently, where both parents exercise parental responsibility, a unilateral permanent relocation of the child, particularly an international relocation, cannot simply be treated as an ordinary decision of the parent with whom the child is living. Where both parents retain the relevant parental responsibility, a significant change in the child’s place of residence, whether within the Czech Republic or abroad, requires their agreement or, in the event of disagreement, a decision of the competent court.

The guiding consideration for the court is the best interests of the child. The proposed relocation must therefore be assessed from the perspective of its consequences for the child, including the child’s relationship with both parents and the practical implications of the proposed change of residence.

Internal relocation and international relocation should nevertheless be distinguished. An international move has an additional cross-border dimension because an unlawful removal or retention may trigger the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction”) and, in cases between EU Member States, the supplementary provisions of the Brussels IIb Regulation.

Accordingly, the fact that a child lives predominantly with one parent does not in itself give that parent an unrestricted right to relocate the child abroad contrary to the parental responsibility rights of the other parent.

Within the European Union, excluding Denmark, foreign custody and contact decisions are principally governed by Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (Brussels IIb). For proceedings instituted on or after 1 August 2022, decisions are recognised without any special procedure and, if enforceable in the State of origin, may be enforced in the Czech Republic without a declaration of enforceability. Enforcement requires a copy of the decision and the appropriate certificate. Earlier proceedings remain subject to Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa), under which a declaration of enforceability may be required.

Recognition and enforcement are subject to the applicable statutory safeguards. Certain certified access decisions benefit from a privileged regime with more restricted grounds for refusal under Articles 42–50 of Brussels IIb.

Outside that regime, the applicable international treaty must be considered, particularly the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. Under that Convention, measures are generally recognised by operation of law, but enforcement requires a declaration of enforceability or registration under Article 26. In the absence of an applicable treaty, Czech private international law applies. Actual enforcement is carried out under Czech procedural law.

A separate Czech “mirror order” reproducing the foreign decision is not required under these recognition and enforcement regimes. The relevant route is recognition and enforcement of the foreign decision, rather than a fresh determination of its substance.

The Czech Republic is a Contracting Party to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

In cases of wrongful removal or retention between EU Member States, the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is complemented by the Brussels IIb Regulation. The Regulation expressly applies, as regards its relevant chapters, to wrongful removal or retention involving more than one Member State and contains supplementary rules intended to reinforce the operation of the Hague Convention within the EU.

The Czech central authority for international child protection is the Office for International Legal Protection of Children.

Czech law does not comprehensively regulate surrogacy as a distinct legal institution, nor does it expressly prohibit it. The Civil Code refers to surrogacy in Section 804 in the context of adoption, while the legal framework governing assisted reproduction is primarily contained in Act No. 373/2011 Coll., on Specific Health Services. There is therefore no comprehensive statutory regime setting out the rights and obligations of the surrogate and the intended parent or parents.

Surrogacy does not, by itself, automatically transfer legal parenthood to the intended parent or parents. Under Section 775 of the Civil Code, the woman who gives birth to the child is the legal mother. The establishment of the intended parent’s legal relationship with the child therefore requires assessment under the ordinary rules governing parenthood and, where applicable, adoption.

Czech law does not establish a regulated commercial surrogacy regime or expressly provide for a right to remuneration of a surrogate. The absence of a specific statutory framework means that the legality and enforceability of any agreement concerning payment or reimbursement must be assessed with particular caution under the general rules of Czech private law but also in light of potential criminal liability. Section 169 of the Czech Criminal Code criminalises entrusting a child to another person for remuneration for adoption or a similar purpose. Genuine reimbursement of expenses should not automatically be equated with such remuneration; the substance, purpose and circumstances of the payment must be examined.

Surrogacy should therefore not be described as a regulated service available to a defined category of applicants, whether married couples, unmarried couples or individuals.

Adoption creates a legal parent-child relationship between the adopter and the child and, subject to the statutory rules, replaces the child’s legal relationship with the original family.

An adopter must generally be an adult and fully capable of exercising legal capacity and must, having regard to his or her personal characteristics, way of life and reasons for seeking adoption, provide sufficient assurance that he or she will be a good parent. The adoption must also be in the child’s best interests, and further statutory conditions apply, including requirements concerning the child’s consent and the legal availability of the child for adoption.

An individual may adopt under Czech law. Married couples may adopt jointly, and one spouse may also adopt individually the other spouse´s child. Since 1 January 2025, a partner (i.e. a person in a Czech-law partnership) may adopt the child of the other partner. However, Czech law does not permit two partners to adopt a child jointly; joint adoption is expressly reserved to spouses.

Unmarried heterosexual cohabiting couples are therefore not permitted to adopt a child jointly merely by virtue of their cohabitation. One person may, however, apply to adopt individually if the statutory conditions are satisfied. Mere cohabitation, whether heterosexual or same-sex, does not provide a basis for second-parent adoption preserving the existing parent’s legal status. The statutory route requires marriage or, for same-sex couples, a Czech-law partnership.

Mediation is expressly recognised under Czech law by Act No. 202/2012 Coll., on Mediation (“the Act on Mediation”). The Act on Mediation defines mediation as a process in which one or more mediators facilitate communication between the parties with a view to helping them reach an amicable solution. It expressly recognises family mediation as mediation concerning conflicts arising from family relationships.

Other consensual forms of dispute resolution include direct negotiations, settlement facilitated by the court and, in appropriate cases, family therapy or professional counselling. In proceedings concerning minor children, the court is required to encourage an amicable resolution and may recommend or order participation in mediation or other forms of professional assistance.

Mediation is not generally a mandatory prerequisite to bringing family proceedings. However, where appropriate, the court may order the parties to attend a first meeting with a registered mediator, normally for up to three hours, and may suspend the proceedings for up to three months. This obligation concerns attendance at the first meeting, not reaching an agreement through mediation.

A mediation agreement is a written agreement concluded by the parties in the course of mediation and regulating their mutual rights and obligations. It is not, merely by virtue of being concluded in mediation, an enforceable title. Its legal effect and enforceability depend on its subject matter and legal form; for example, an agreement concerning minor children may require court approval, while a private agreement may be made enforceable through an appropriate enforceable instrument.

Accordingly, mediation is an important means of achieving consensual solutions in Czech family disputes, but it does not replace judicial determination where Czech law requires a court decision, including divorce and certain matters concerning minor children.

Czech family law has recently undergone a substantial reform effective from 1 January 2026 under Act No. 268/2025 Coll., which amended the Civil Code and a number of related statutes. The reform significantly changed the rules on divorce, parental responsibility and arrangements for the care of minor children, as well as related procedural rules.

In particular, the reform simplified the conditions for agreed divorce and limited the circumstances in which the court examines the causes of marital breakdown. It also replaced the previous statutory categorisation of child-care arrangements into sole, alternating and joint custody with a framework centred on the care exercised by each parent. The child’s best interests remain the primary consideration.

As a general rule, court hearings in the Czech Republic are public. The court may, however, exclude the public from all or part of a hearing where public proceedings could, in particular, jeopardise an important interest of the parties or public morality. This is particularly relevant in family proceedings, where sensitive information concerning the private and family life of the parties or minor children may be discussed.

The press is therefore not subject to a general prohibition on attending family hearings. Journalists may attend a public hearing unless the court excludes the public in accordance with the statutory conditions. Where the public is excluded, the court may exceptionally permit specified individuals to remain present, subject to a duty of confidentiality.

Public pronouncement must be distinguished from publication of the written judgment. Decisions falling within the applicable publication rules are published with identifying information removed or replaced, subject to statutory exceptions. Their factual background and reasoning may therefore be publicly accessible in a pseudonymised form.

Relationship breakdown can have significant consequences for estate planning under Czech law, particularly because matrimonial property and succession are separate but interconnected matters. The Civil Code contains rules governing both matrimonial property and succession.

Following divorce, the former spouses’ statutory community property (SJM) must be settled, either by agreement, by court decision or, if no settlement is reached within three years, under the statutory rules of Section 741 of the Civil Code. The outcome of the settlement determines which assets remain in the individual ownership of each former spouse and may therefore affect the assets subsequently forming part of their estates.

Divorce also has direct succession consequences. A former spouse is no longer a statutory heir by virtue of the former marriage. By contrast, mere separation does not itself terminate the marriage and therefore does not, without more, remove the spouse’s statutory succession rights.

Existing wills and other dispositions mortis causa should be reviewed as part of separation and divorce planning, particularly where they were made on the assumption that the marriage would continue. Divorce does not automatically revoke a testamentary disposition benefiting the former spouse. Rights and obligations under an inheritance contract between spouses also survive divorce unless the contract provides otherwise; judicial cancellation is subject to the conditions in section 1593.

In addition, the matrimonial property consequences of divorce should be distinguished from succession. Where a marriage ends by death rather than divorce, the surviving spouse’s rights in the SJM are dealt with as part of the succession proceedings before the estate is distributed. The Civil Code provides specific rules for determining which assets belong to the surviving spouse and which form part of the estate.