July 22, 2025 4 min read
The loss or destruction of a promissory note can be a serious problem, especially if it is a note securing a significant financial transaction. The problem is all the more noticeable when it is not a regular, already filled in bill of exchange, but a so-called blank promissory note, which is waiting for the addition of data, usually the amount or maturity. Can such an instrument also be replaced by a court order in redemption proceedings in case of its loss or destruction?
So far, the interpretation has been inconsistent: part of the professional community was of the opinion that a blank promissory note cannot be redeemed. Without the completed data, it cannot be a security because no enforceable right is incorporated in it.
The majority of legal theory, on the other hand, favoured the possibility of redemption of the blank promissory note and emphasized the protection of legal certainty, even in the event of loss or destruction of the instrument.
The Supreme Court resolved the disputation in favour of redemption, saying that “a blank promissory note is generally not an instrument, which cannot be redeemed, and it remains to be assessed whether it is an instrument, which must be produced to enforce a right.” The decision refers to the primary reason for issuing the blank promissory note, which is its future completion and use. In view of the purpose of the instrument, the court considers it to be proper and is inclined to the opinion that the blank promissory note can be redeemed.
The decision brings, first of all, a higher level of legal certainty. Loss or destruction of a blank promissory note is not fatal, it can be replaced and the claim thereon can continue. At the same time, however, it is necessary to prove the existence of the instrument and the creditor’s right to fill it in.
The Supreme Court’s decision provides the necessary interpretation: blank promissory notes are not exempt from the redemption regime. If its existence is sufficiently proven, it can be replaced by a court decision, thus preserving the possibility of asserting a promissory note claim.
A shareholder's right to participate in profits is one of their fundamental rights. In practice, however, this may collide with the decision-making autonomy of the General Meeting, particularly in situations where a majority shareholder obstructs profit distribution.
Loyalty programme discounts are lawful, but unclear presentation of “club prices” may mislead consumers and expose traders to significant legal and regulatory risks.
The Supreme Court clarifies that loan interest payments made before insolvency do not automatically constitute preferential treatment if they arise from an economically balanced contractual relationship.
FAQ: What Paid Leave Are You Entitled to at Work?
The Czech Supreme Court clarifies when employees removed from managerial positions are entitled to severance pay and how redundancy should be assessed.
The CJEU confirms that limitation periods for consumer claims based on unfair contract terms cannot begin before consumers can reasonably identify the unfairness.
New Button for Online Withdrawal from a Contract
The Czech National Bank clarifies the definition of “senior management” under ZISIF, providing guidance on approval requirements and governance for investment companies and funds.
The High Court in Prague has granted the request of the security system administrator, authorizing the use of technology enabling biometric recognition of individuals via CCTV and artificial intelligence algorithms within the monitored areas of Václava Havel Airport.
In February of this year, a new government bill on the forfeiture of assets of unexplained origin was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies. This legislation...
