(Czech Supreme Court Judgment No. 29 Cdo 1970/2014 of 28 May 2015)
Here, the Supreme Court dealt with the procedural effects of inconsistent objections raised against a draft payment order.
The appellant in the proceeding contested the approach of the appellate court, which, when deciding on objections raised against a draft payment order, failed to consider the appellant’s objection that it had not signed the promissory note that was the subject of the given legal proceedings. The appellate court justified this procedure by stating the given objection runs contradictory to the other objections raised by the appellant in the legal proceeding.
The appellant argued that the other objections were only raised as a procedural precaution in case its objection to the inauthenticity of the signature proved unsuccessful. It was thus the opinion of the appellant that these objections, which had been raised in a timely manner, could not be deemed inconsistent with its objection to the inauthenticity of the signature for the foregoing reason. The appellant defended its procedure in raising the objections by stating it had signed a “certain blank bill of exchange” for the benefit of the original owner in the past, though that bill was not the bill that was the subject of the given legal proceeding.
The Supreme Court opined that if it is clear from the content of the individual objections in what scope the party to the proceeding is challenging the draft payment order and based on what factual circumstances it raises these objections, then the objections cannot be considered unjustified. The above applies regardless of whether the objections are mutually contradictory.
The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier decision- making practice, where the mutual inconsistency of objections raised by a party to a proceeding cannot result in the court’s dismissal of these objections for being not capable of being discussed or its not dealing with them at all.
The Supreme Court additionally based its opinion on the procedural consequences of raising contradictory objections against a draft payment order on the provisions of § 175(1)(3)(4) of Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the Civil Procedure Code, in which no basis for the opinion that contradictory objections are not capable of being discussed exists.