⚖️ The First Lawsuit Reveals a Strategy to Avoid Legal Responsibility
Under case number 31 C 121 / 2023, civil proceedings are underway in the Czech Republic against Petra Quick, who faces serious allegations — including obstruction of justice, concealment of assets, and manipulation within her own family.
The lawsuit presents compelling evidence of her effort to avoid legal liability by using international influence, suppressing the truth, and ultimately shifting the blame onto her son Adam.
🧩 Indications of Cooperation with Swedish Intelligence (SAPO) and an Attempt to Shift Jurisdiction
One of Petra Quick’s first moves in the legal proceedings was to attempt to transfer the case to Sweden, where she has longstanding personal ties. According to available indications, there is reasonable suspicion that Petra Quick has cooperated with the Swedish Security Service (SAPO), allegedly providing sensitive information about relatives of a high-ranking Czech politician.
According to witness statements, these connections allowed her to avoid prosecution, suppress the admission of evidence, and transfer substantial assets beyond the reach of Czech courts — including from a partner with whom she lived for 18 years.
đź“„ Judgment Without Evidence: Legally Inadmissible Under Czech and EU Law
As part of her defense, Petra Quick submitted a ruling from a Swedish court that allegedly supported her position. The Czech judge, through official legal cooperation, requested the underlying evidence that supported this ruling.
The response from Swedish authorities was unequivocal: no archived evidence exists in support of the ruling.
Any judgment that lacks archived evidentiary material is legally inadmissible under both Czech and EU law. While no formal decision has yet been issued by the Czech court, it is expected that a motion will be submitted to reject the Swedish ruling due to its incompatibility with the Czech constitutional order.
⚖️ Legal Analysis: Judgments Without Evidence Are Inadmissible Across the EU
According to Section 15(1) of Czech Act No. 91/2012 Coll., on International Private Law, Czech courts must not recognize a foreign judgment if doing so would be contrary to the public order of the Czech Republic — especially in cases where no evidentiary basis exists.
At the European level, the same protection is provided by EU Regulation No. 1215/2012 (“Brussels I bis”), Article 45(1)(a), which states that a foreign judgment shall not be recognized if it is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the member state in which recognition is sought.
This means that any judgment unsupported by documented evidence is legally unenforceable, and courts across the EU are obliged to reject such rulings. This has already occurred in practice in countries such as France, Germany, and Austria.
📧 Digital Evidence: Emails, Messages, and Attempted Purchase of Steroids
A major portion of the evidence comes from Petra Quick’s digital communications on company devices, including:
- Email correspondence spanning over 15 years,
- Messages and internal records from her business phone,
- Messages documenting her efforts to procure anabolic steroids for her son Adam, with the intent to improve his performance and accelerate his biological development.
The content of these communications clearly demonstrates that Petra Quick was the primary decision-maker and directly oversaw key financial and personal actions at the heart of the dispute.
🧍‍♀️ A Drastic Shift in Defense: She Blames Her Own Son
Faced with mounting evidence, Petra Quick changed her defense strategy entirely — she blamed everything on her son Adam, claiming he acted alone and without her knowledge.
This narrative is, however, flatly contradicted by witness testimony and the documented communications, which consistently show Petra herself issuing instructions, approving actions, and orchestrating the disputed conduct.
❌ Privacy Objection: Unfounded and Self-Defeating
Petra Quick also raised an objection that the use of her emails and text messages constitutes a violation of her privacy.
The court has not yet ruled on this objection. However, the plaintiff noted that all of the data originated from company-owned devices, which are, by their nature, subject to legal audit and admissible in judicial proceedings.
Moreover, this objection only reinforces concerns that Petra Quick had previously lied in Sweden and that her real goal is to prevent the full truth from emerging.
If Petra Quick genuinely sought to prove her innocence, she would have no reason to oppose the disclosure of her full email and SMS history. Her refusal to allow this only deepens the suspicion that she is hiding incriminating evidence.
🧠Conclusion: Legal Rejection of the Swedish Ruling Is Likely — And May Set an EU Precedent
Petra Quick’s case exemplifies how international connections can be misused to circumvent national and EU law. The Swedish ruling — issued without any evidentiary documentation — has no legal force.
It is expected that the Czech court will formally reject the Swedish judgment on the grounds of legal and constitutional inadmissibility. This case could serve as a precedent within the European Union for rejecting similar foreign rulings that fail to meet basic standards of due process.
Leave a Reply