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 [February 2026]: Supreme Court dealt with dismissal in case of refusal of assigned work
In its February summary of case law, the Supreme Court dealt with four substantively different disputes, in which it clarified the interpretation of key institutes of labour, insolvency and real estate law. In the area of labour relations, for example, it defined that a mere change in the scope of work of the successor of a senior employee does not mean the abolition of the job and does not in itself give rise to a right to severance pay. In insolvency law, the court emphasized the inadmissibility of the debtor acting as his own creditor in insolvency proceedings conducted against his property. Also noteworthy is the decision in the field of housing law, in which the Supreme Court corrected the conclusions of lower courts on the possibility of renting the common areas of the house and limited the formalistic approach to assessing the protection of the tenant.
- In the judgment file no. 21 Cdo 3286/2024, the Supreme Court dealt with whether a senior employee is entitled to severance pay after dismissal from office and termination of employment, if the employer continued to maintain the job but later filled it with a different range of working hours. The subject of the dispute was the assessment of whether a differently agreed working time at the new director means the abolition of the position as a result of an organisational change. The Supreme Court emphasized that the further necessity of the type of work remains decisive, not the extent of the working time. According to the court, the change in the working hours of a new senior employee does not mean the abolition of the job. If the employer still needs to perform the same type of work, there is no entitlement to severance pay. The Supreme Court therefore rejected the plaintiff’s appeal.
- In the judgment file no. 29 ICdo 105/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether the insolvency trustee may file a debtor in insolvency proceedings and assert an incidental action against the debtor’s claim against himself, which arises from a lien on receivables from clients’ bank accounts. The subject of the dispute was the authenticity and amount of the contingent receivable registered by the bank in liquidation in the insolvency proceedings itself. The Supreme Court confirmed that the debtor cannot participate in the insolvency proceedings conducted against his property as his own creditor, even in the position of a pledgee under Section 1335 (1) of the Bankruptcy Code. 1 of the Civil Code. It emphasized that the application of a claim for insolvency proceedings replaces a lawsuit and it cannot be allowed for the same entity to act simultaneously on the side of the plaintiff and the defendant. He only criticized the appellate court for a procedural error in the legal classification. The Supreme Court therefore amended the contested decision in such a way that it discontinued the proceedings on the incidental action due to an irremediable deficiency of the procedural condition, not by rejecting the action as filed by an unauthorised person.
- In the judgment file no. 26 Cdo 1827/2025, the Supreme Court resolved a dispute over the eviction of the former elevator engine room, which was used by cooperative tenants on the basis of an amendment to the lease agreement together with the apartment. The essence of the case was the question whether a valid general lease of the common area of the house could have arisen and whether the use of the engine room could be protected under Section 2238 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court erred in assessing the lease of the engine room as a general lease, although according to the legislation in force until 31.12.2013, the common areas cannot be rented in this way. At the same time, it wrongly rejected the application of Section 2238 of the Civil Code as an inadmissible novelty, even though it was a legal assessment based on the established facts. The Supreme Court therefore annulled the decision of the courts of both instances and returned the case for further proceedings.
- In the judgment file no. 21 Cdo 1103/2024, the Supreme Court decided whether an employer may give notice under Section 52 (g) of the Labour Code (serious breach of duties) to an employee who refused to perform another job to which he was transferred without consent after an accident at work. The subject of the dispute was the validity of the dismissal due to unexcused absence after such transfer. The Supreme Court concluded that the transfer to another suitable job establishes the employee’s obligation to perform this work until the employment relationship is terminated. It rejected the opinion that the employer must use the notice of termination pursuant to Section 52 (a) of the Act on Administrative Procedure as a matter of priority. d) of the Labour Code (loss of capacity). He emphasized that all grounds for dismissal under Section 52 of the Labour Code are equal and the choice belongs to the employer. Therefore, it quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and returned the case to it for further proceedings.
