Interim decisions: a new institution of Czech family law under Constitutional Court scrutiny

The Czech Constitutional Court recently dealt with cases that fundamentally change the view of a new procedural institution of family law — the interim decision (prozatímní rozhodnutí). Since 1 January 2026, rules have applied that replace the previous interim measures in proceedings concerning minor children. And the first judgments of the Constitutional Court show that the lower courts are having considerable difficulty applying the new rules.

Interim decisions are an entirely new tool by which courts provisionally regulate a minor child's arrangements. The key difference from interim measures is that no appeal is admissible against an interim decision. The only remaining means of review is therefore a constitutional complaint. This means that a parent who feels aggrieved by the decision of the court of first instance has no ordinary remedy available and must go straight to the Constitutional Court.

The legislature's aim with this regulation was to speed up proceedings concerning minors. But as practice in the first months has shown, the absence of an appeal places exceptionally high demands on the quality of decision-making by courts of first instance. And not all courts are ready for this responsibility.

School as a reason for an interim decision

The first of the judgments (file no. II. ÚS 1124/26) concerned a situation familiar to many parents. A son had chosen a grammar school he wanted to transfer to, and a place happened to become available. The mother needed the court to substitute the father's consent to the transfer application, because the school's capacity was limited and time was of the essence.

The district court, however, rejected the mother's petition outright. It argued that this was a manifestly unsuccessful exercise of rights, because it would in effect be deciding finally and further proceedings would lose their purpose. The Constitutional Court clearly rejected this approach. Blanket rejection of petitions concerning a child's education merely because they anticipate the decision on the merits violates the fundamental rights of the parties.

The Constitutional Court stressed that even though an interim decision has limited duration, this does not mean the court can give up on assessing the merits. It must always consider whether interim protection of the child's rights is really needed in view of the passage of time. The best interests of the child must be the primary consideration, and the child has the right to be heard in such a matter.

Procedural rules cannot be circumvented

The second judgment (file no. I. ÚS 1382/26) revealed an even more serious error. A father asked for holiday contact with his two sons to be set. The court did intend to serve the petition on the other parties, but in fact this did not happen. At the hearing, the mother and the guardian confirmed that they did not have the petition. Nevertheless, about a week later the court issued an interim decision and extended the father's contact with the children.

The Constitutional Court quashed this decision. It held that an interim decision may only be issued if the court has given all parties an opportunity to comment — including the minor child. It is precisely the exclusion of an appeal as a remedy that makes the requirement to observe procedural rules even more pressing.

All parties must be informed of the petition in good time and must be acquainted with its content. Ideally, the petitioner should inform the other parties himself if possible. If not, the court must do so. At the same time, the court must actively ascertain the child's view on the possibility of an interim decision and on its specific form.

For entrepreneurs and managers going through divorce proceedings or disputes over children, several practical conclusions follow. First, the new rules speed up decision-making but place higher demands on the quality of argument in the petition. When there is no appeal, the first filing must be convincing. Second, if the other party files a petition for an interim decision, you have the right to comment on it. If the court does not give you this opportunity, that is a ground for a constitutional complaint. Third, the child's view plays a key role and courts must actively ascertain it.

So far, the Constitutional Court has received 18 constitutional complaints against interim decisions. It upheld two complainants by judgment, rejected 13 complaints as manifestly unfounded and has not yet decided three cases. This ratio suggests that most interim decisions hold up, but courts of first instance must be much more careful when issuing them. The absence of an appeal does not mean that decisions escape review. It only means that the review is carried out directly by the Constitutional Court — which evidently is not willing to tolerate procedural errors or substantively incorrect decisions.

Source: Czech Constitutional Court, press release TZ 52/2026, judgments file nos. II. ÚS 1124/26 and I. ÚS 1382/26.

Facing a custody or contact dispute? Our family law team can help.