Law
Legal News [March 2026]: The Supreme Court dealt with the case of wiretapping in a children’s home
In the March overview, we bring you four case law from different areas of law. The Supreme Court first dealt with the installation of wiretapping by an educator in a children's home and defined when such conduct constitutes a particularly gross violation of work duties. In another decision, it explained why the employee does not usually suffer damage consisting in the non-granting of unemployment benefit after invalid termination. The Constitutional Court then dealt with the impact of the change in the zoning plan on the right to property and the importance of the owner's legitimate expectations. The Supreme Court then also commented on the fact that after the expiry of the statutory limitation periods, the reasons for the invalidity of the resolution of the General Meeting can no longer be extended.
- In the judgment file no. 21 Cdo 946/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with the validity of the immediate termination of the employment of a educator who placed an eavesdropping device in the office of a social worker in a children’s home. It concluded that such conduct constitutes a particularly gross breach of work duties, as it fundamentally undermines the trust, safety and values of the environment in which children are cared for. He emphasized the responsibility of the educator for creating a safe and predictable environment and concluded that the employer cannot be fairly required to continue employing the employee. At the same time, it interpreted Section 58 para. 2 of the Labour Code in such a way that the extension of the two-month period for immediate termination of employment shall always apply if the employee’s conduct during this period is the subject of an investigation by another authority, regardless of the moment of initiation of the investigation.
- In the judgment file no. 21 Cdo 1696/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether the employer is liable for damage consisting in the non-granting of unemployment benefit after the invalid immediate termination of employment. The subject of the dispute was the right to compensation for the amount corresponding to the refused aid. The Supreme Court interpreted Section 54 of the Employment Act in such a way that if the court determines that the termination of employment is invalid, the applicant is still entitled to the support and can receive it retroactively. Therefore, the employee does not suffer any damage, because he has a legal means to obtain the payment of the support.
- In the judgment file no. IV ÚS 2217/24, the Constitutional Court dealt with the interference with the right of ownership consisting in a change in the zoning plan, which made it impossible for the applicant to build a family house on his land. The administrative courts left the challenged part of the zoning plan in force with reference to the protection of the watercourse, infrastructure and urban concept of the municipality. The Constitutional Court criticized them for their formalistic approach and insufficient assessment of proportionality, especially with regard to the already issued (albeit non-final) building permit and the legitimate expectations of the complainant. In this regard, he noted that even a non-final permit in combination with other steps taken by public authorities may establish reasonable confidence in the possibility of implementing the project. It found a violation of the right to judicial protection and annulled their verdicts. It left the zoning plan itself to the administrative courts for a new review.
- In its resolution file no. 27 Cdo 2064/2023, the Supreme Court addressed whether the petitioner may, after the expiry of the statutory limitation periods, extend the motion for annulment of the resolution of the General Meeting with new reasons that he had raised in the form of a protest at the General Meeting, but did not state them in time in the motion submitted to the court. The subject of the dispute was the validity of the resolution of the general meeting of the limited liability company, in particular in terms of failure to provide information to the shareholder. The Supreme Court emphasized that the legislation effective from 1 January 2014 strengthens the principle of legal certainty and minimization of interference in the internal affairs of corporations through limitation periods. It concluded that after the expiry of the deadlines under Section 259 of the Civil Code and Section 191 par. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, new grounds for invalidity cannot be invoked, even if the applicant objected to them in time by protesting them at the general meeting. The court will not take into account the reasons raised late, even if they are materially justified. The Supreme Court therefore annulled the decision of the appellate court and the court of first instance and returned the case to the court of first instance for further proceedings.
