New tools for the recovery of arrears
Starting this year, the tax authorities are not limited by local jurisdiction when recovering tax arrears. At the same time, from 1 July 2025, the customs administration can use a new power in the event of an u…
Legal News [December 2025]: The Supreme Court dealt with the erroneous application of the general legislation in the event of construction defects
The December selection of four Supreme Court decisions offers a varied cross-section of current case law. The validity of the delivery of the notice of termination if the employee refuses to accept the document was addressed, and it was also confirmed that legal action against the employee may also be performed by a person authorized to manage a contributory organization. In another case, the court pointed out the inadmissibility of a surprise decision if the appellate court newly disputes the participation without giving the parties the opportunity to comment on it. Another judgment concerns the erroneous application of the general legislation in the case of construction defects, where special consumer protection should have been taken into account. Finally, it was confirmed that the insolvency trustee cannot extend the grounds for denying an enforceable claim in the lawsuit beyond those specifically stated when denying it.
- In the judgment No. 21 Cdo 2419/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with the validity of the service of an appeal from the position of a managerial employee and a notice of termination of employment if the employee refused to accept the documents. It concluded that the effects of service occur at the moment of refusal to accept the document (Section 334 (3) of the Civil Code), that the workplace within the meaning of Section 334 (3) of the Civil Code. 2 of the Labour Code may also be the registered office of the founder of the contributory organisation (the City Hall) and that the person entrusted with its management is entitled to perform legal acts against employees. The deadline of about 40 minutes for the acceptance of the proposal for another job classification was not found to be unreasonable. It dismissed the appeal.
- In the judgment No. 22 Cdo 2523/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where the appellate court changed the decision not because of the substantive assessment of the validity of the donation agreement, but because of the newly considered lack of participation of the testator’s wife – even though this issue was not raised in the proceedings at all. The essence of the problem was that the appellate court did not inform the parties of a different legal opinion on substantive standing and an urgent legal interest, thus issuing a surprising decision and violating the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court concluded that any lack of participation should have been resolved before the court of first instance, and therefore annulled both decisions and returned the case for a new hearing.
- In the judgment No. 25 Cdo 292/2024, the Supreme Court dealt with whether the appellate court correctly assessed the timeliness of the exercise of rights arising from defects in the construction of a house for consumers. The essence of the problem was that the appellate court applied the general provisions on late complaining of defects (Section 2618 of the Civil Code) without taking into account that it was a contract for work between an entrepreneur and a consumer, which is subject to a special regime of statutory guarantee (Section 2165 of the Civil Code) and a five-year period for hidden defects of the construction (Section 2629 of the Civil Code). By doing so, it came to the incorrect conclusion that the complaint was late. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court had applied an incorrect legal norm, and therefore its legal assessment was erroneous, and quashed the judgment and returned the case to it for further proceedings.
- In the judgment No. No. 29 ICdo 99/2024, the Supreme Court focused on the question of whether the insolvency trustee complied with the obligation to state the specific facts for which he denies the claim when denying an enforceable claim. The administrator merely stated that “the claim did not arise” and referred to several court decisions, without specifying any specific factual ground in the denial act. However, such a procedure does not meet the requirement of Section 199 (1) of the Civil Code. 3 of the Insolvency Act, according to which the administrator may only assert in an incidental action those facts that he has already stated in the denial. A mere reference to other decisions does not satisfy that requirement. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the denial did not contain the necessary claims and that the subsequent action could not go beyond its scope.
