Amendment to the Code of Administrative Justice as of 1 January 2026: what has changed and why it may be important also for businesses, municipalities

09. 02. 2026

As of 1 January 2026, a significant amendment to the Code of Administrative Justice entered into force, modifying a number of procedural rules in administrative judicial proceedings. Although this is not a change that is “media-visible” at first glance, its practical impact may be considerable. It affects how quickly, efficiently, and procedurally fairly administrative courts will review decisions of administrative authorities.

In other words, this is not primarily a change to substantive law, but rather to the procedural framework of judicial protection. And it is often the procedural framework that determines whether a party can effectively and timely enforce its rights. The amendment forms part of Act No. 314/2025 Coll.; although this act as a whole largely takes effect later, the part concerning the Code of Administrative Justice (Articles X and XI) became effective as early as 1 January 2026.

Strengthening the rights of persons participating in proceedings

One of the most significant changes is the new definition of the procedural status of a person participating in the proceedings. It now applies that, unless the law provides otherwise or the nature of a specific procedural right excludes it, such a person has the same procedural rights and obligations as a party to the proceedings. This represents a fundamental shift from the previous regulation, which treated the position of such persons rather restrictively.

In practice, this change is particularly important where judicial proceedings directly affect third parties, typically in construction-related matters. For example, if a permit is challenged by an action, the participating person (e.g., the developer) now has a stronger procedural position in defending a decision favorable to them. This is therefore not merely a technical adjustment, but a change that may materially influence both the course and outcome of proceedings.

Costs of proceedings: higher procedural risk for unsuccessful claimants

The strengthening of the procedural position of participating persons is also reflected in changes to cost allocation. The amendment expands the possibility for such persons to be awarded reimbursement of costs against an unsuccessful claimant, provided that they were defending a right arising from the challenged decision or other act.

The practical implication is clear: filing an administrative action remains a legitimate means of protecting rights; however, the procedural risk of failure may now have more tangible financial consequences, including liability for the costs of third parties. This is a factor that should be carefully assessed before bringing an action.

Binding opinions as “decisions” for the purposes of judicial review in certain cases

Another major innovation is the explicit provision that a binding opinion which prevents the issuance of a permit or consent is considered a “decision” for the purposes of judicial review. This change is particularly significant in permitting processes, where a negative binding opinion may effectively block further proceedings.

The amendment also refines the procedural mechanism for reviewing such acts: before ruling on an objection, the court must allow the administrative authority that issued the act to present its views; if the objection is found to be justified, the court annuls the act by a separate ruling for illegality. This is complemented by rules on serving the court’s final decision on the administrative authority concerned. In many cases, this change may shorten the path to judicial protection and clarify the procedural position of the authorities involved.

Electronic communication and filings: stronger emphasis on digital procedures

The amendment further specifies rules for submissions and service. Of particular importance is the rule that persons (or their representatives) who have an officially established data box must file submissions, including attachments, in electronic form; paper submissions are permitted only in justified cases and must include reasons.

In practice, this reinforces the trend toward digitalization of judicial communication and at the same time imposes higher demands for procedural diligence. The amendment also refines certain formal requirements of electronic filings and addresses situations where necessary delivery data cannot be determined from a submission.

Manifest abuse of rights as a new ground for rejection

A new explicit ground for rejecting an application has been introduced: the court may reject a submission if it constitutes a manifest abuse of rights. Although administrative courts have already applied the principle prohibiting abuse of rights, the amendment now expressly incorporates this corrective mechanism into the statutory text.

In practice, the precise contours of this provision will be shaped by case law. It can be expected to be applied particularly where procedural activity is not aimed at protecting rights but rather at obstruction or harassment.

Hearings, evidence, and increased procedural concentration

The amendment also clarifies rules governing hearings and the taking of evidence. It explicitly provides that evidence is taken at hearings, regulates the delivery of judgments following hearings, and introduces the possibility for the court to set a deadline by which parties may present new allegations and evidence. Submissions made after this point will only be considered if statutory conditions are met.

This change aims to enhance procedural discipline and predictability. For parties and their representatives, it means that timely and well-considered procedural strategy, including the presentation of evidence, will become even more critical.

Pronouncement of judgments: new rules and publication on notice boards

The amendment also modifies the method of pronouncing judgments. Judgments must be delivered in the name of the Republic and publicly; newly, they may be pronounced orally or by posting the full or abbreviated version on the court’s official notice board for 14 days. At the same time, rules concerning the protection of personal data are addressed, including special provisions for international protection cases.

This change has the potential to improve the efficiency of court operations, but also imposes higher demands on monitoring the procedural development of cases and on the internal processes of legal representatives.

Measures of a general nature: new possibility of “non-application” after the time limit for annulment

An important change also concerns the review of measures of a general nature. The amendment allows a party, in proceedings where such a measure has been applied, to propose—after the expiry of the time limit for its annulment—that the court declare the measure (or part thereof) inapplicable in the specific case, provided that statutory conditions are met. The amendment also supplements rules on obtaining the opinion of the issuing authority and on taking into account rights acquired in good faith and the protection of public interest.

In practice, this may become an important tool, particularly where there is no longer scope for a more general challenge to the measure, but its application in a specific case raises serious legal issues.

Cassation complaints and the role of the Supreme Administrative Court

The amendment also affects cassation proceedings. It expands the range of decisions against which a cassation complaint is not admissible (including certain decisions on suspensive effect, interim measures, court fees, or the appointment of a representative), while also strengthening the possibility for the Supreme Administrative Court to decide the case itself after quashing a regional court decision, provided statutory conditions are met and the procedural state of the case allows it.

This approach reflects an effort to shorten proceedings and reduce the “procedural ping-pong” between regional courts and the Supreme Administrative Court. For parties, this may lead to a faster final resolution of disputes.

Transitional provisions: why the effective date alone is not sufficient

From a practical perspective, it is essential not to overlook the transitional provisions. As a general rule, the new regulation also applies to proceedings initiated before the amendment took effect, while the legal effects of previously performed acts remain preserved. At the same time, the law provides for exceptions (e.g., in relation to certain matters concerning single judges, costs of participating persons, or electoral matters) and includes a special rule for cassation complaints filed before the amendment took effect, which are to be decided under the previous legal framework.

This is particularly important when assessing ongoing cases: in practice, it will not always be decisive that the amendment is already in force, but also when the proceedings were initiated and what procedural acts have been performed.

Conclusion

The amendment to the Code of Administrative Justice effective as of 1 January 2026 represents a significant step toward more efficient and procedurally precise administrative adjudication. It strengthens the position of participating persons, modifies certain rules on cost allocation, opens the way for more direct judicial review of certain binding opinions, and refines a number of procedural details that may have a decisive impact in individual cases.

For clients, the conclusion is clear: in administrative matters, timely procedural assessment and a properly chosen strategy will become even more important. Not only the substance of the dispute, but also the manner in which it is procedurally conducted, will carry increased weight under the new regime.

All articles