Skip to content 
The reason for submitting the proposal of the Act on Payment Order Proceedings to the legislator was, according to the explanatory memorandum, the need to accelerate proceedings concerning a large number of motions filed for the issuance of payment orders aimed at satisfying monetary claims of claimants. From the manner in which the procedural steps of the court and the disputing parties are set out, it may be concluded that, among other specific features, the defining characteristic of payment order proceedings should be their speed.
However, by its decision of 08 October 2024, ref. no. II. ÚS 185/2024-55, the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic had to address the question of whether procedural activity by a party—which in the case of payment order proceedings should be welcomed due to the very nature of such proceedings—may ultimately operate to that party’s detriment.
The complainant initially sought payment of a monetary claim by filing a motion for the issuance of a payment order with the District Court Banská Bystrica against the defendant. Based on this motion, the District Court Banská Bystrica issued a payment order, against which the defendant filed an objection. Even before the objection was formally served on the complainant for response, the complainant proactively responded to it by a written submission dated 05 May 2023, in which she also stated that she maintained the filed action and proposed the wording of the final decision on the merits. On 20 June 2023, the complainant was sent the defendant’s objection together with a request to respond within 15 days and to propose continuation of the proceedings before the court competent to hear the case under the Civil Procedure Code.
By resolution of the District Court Banská Bystrica dated 08 August 2023, the court decided to refund part of the paid court fee to the complainant, stating in its reasoning that the request to respond to the objection had been delivered to the complainant on 04 July 2023, however, until the date of issuance of the resolution, the complainant had not responded to the court’s request. In view of this, the proceedings were discontinued in accordance with Section 14(2) of the Act on Payment Order Proceedings.
The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic stated that the interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Act on Payment Order Proceedings, according to which a motion to continue the proceedings before the court competent to hear the case under the Civil Procedure Code, filed by the claimant prior to the service of the court’s request to file such a motion, is disregarded, is contrary to the purpose of the legal regulation of payment order proceedings and constitutes unjustified judicial law-making and a denial of the claimant’s right of access to a court. Pursuing the purpose of payment order proceedings, i.e., their acceleration, the complainant exercised her procedural right and responded by her submission to the defendant’s objection served on the court without waiting for the court’s request to respond to the objection, and for this proactive approach she was ultimately sanctioned by the district court in the form of denial of the right of access to a court.
According to the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, in this case it was appropriate to take into account the purpose of the Act on Payment Order Proceedings and to avoid strict formalism when assessing the complainant’s submission, because it was precisely the interpretation of Section 14(1) and (2) of the Act on Payment Order Proceedings provided by the District Court Banská Bystrica in the described specific situation that resulted in the denial of the complainant’s right of access to a court. The general court should have actively and effectively ensured the complainant’s fundamental right to judicial protection in the aspect of access to a court, as this is a positive obligation of the state. The interpretation of the provisions of the Act on Payment Order Proceedings should have been teleologically limited, within the boundaries set by constitutional principles.
In this regard, we recommend reading the full argumentation of the complainant, the reasoning of the District Court Banská Bystrica, and the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic on the individual arguments.
