Law
Legal News [June 2026]: According to the Supreme Court, the implementation contract must correspond to the contract on the future contract
The June selection of the Supreme Court's case law focuses on several interesting conclusions in the field of contract law, compensation for damages and civil proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled on the question whether the owner of the land adjacent to the railway may claim compensation for the costs incurred in the removal of vegetation endangering the safety of rail transport, and at the same time confirmed that the damage to the property arises from its damage, regardless of whether the injured party actually paid the costs of repair. Another decision specifies the conditions for suspending the limitation period for a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage to health, if the amount of the claim is not precisely quantified in the lawsuit from the beginning. The selection concludes with the still unresolved question of whether an invitation to conclude an implementation contract that deviates from the content of the contract on a future contract may give rise to an obligation to conclude the contract and, if necessary, lead to a claim for a contractual penalty.
- In its decision file no. 25 Cdo 1840 / 2024, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether and under what conditions the owner (administrator) of land in the vicinity of the railway has the right to compensation for damage caused by the felling of vegetation within the meaning of Section 10 of the Railways Act against the railway operator. The Supreme Court concluded that the owner (administrator) of the land, who on the basis of a notice pursuant to Section 10 (3) of the Railways Act, has removed or trimmed its trees and other vegetation that threaten the safety or fluency of railway transport or the operability of the railway (it will eliminate the danger to the railway), it is not entitled to reimbursement of the costs of removal incurred or compensation for premature clearing of forest stands against the railway operator. In the present case, the court assessed that there was no prerequisite for compensation for damage due to the absence of unlawful conduct on the part of the railway operator. Nor is there any reimbursement of costs for averting imminent damage, because these do not belong to the person who caused the threat of damage himself – in this case, he allowed the vegetation on the land owned (managed) by him to grow in such a way that it threatened the safety, continuity or operability of the railway. The appellant’s objection that those owners who fail to comply with the request within the meaning of Section 10(3) of the Railways Act thereby benefit from their own dishonest or unlawful conduct was likewise not considered justified. The provisions of Section 10 (3) of the Railways Act gives owners a choice whether to comply with the request or not. If they comply, they retain control over the interventions in the vegetation and at the same time prevent their liability for damage caused, for example, by a tree falling on the track. On the contrary, by failing to comply with the request, they are exposed to the risk of liability for any damage to the life and health of the transported persons or property. The costs incurred thus represent the fulfilment of the owner’s own preventive obligation and are not eligible for reimbursement.
- The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic in its judgment file no. 25 Cdo 2164/2025 of 29 April 2026 addressed the question of whether damage to property and the right to compensation arises even if the injured party did not actually incur the costs of repair (e.g. because it is covered by a flat-rate service contract). In the present case, a toll gate owned by the Czech Republic was damaged by the operation of the defendant’s vehicle. The repair was carried out by a third party on the basis of a long-term contract for the maintenance of the toll system for a lump sum fee, so that the applicant did not spend any additional funds. Therefore, the lower courts dismissed the action for damages on the grounds that the plaintiff had not suffered material damage. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that damage to the property arises from its damage itself, when the property of the injured party is reduced, and it is not decisive how the injured party removes its consequences or whether they actually pay for the repair. The harmful party cannot then be detrimental or beneficial by the manner in which the injured party resolved the consequences of the harmful event. Therefore, the fact that the repair was carried out under a flat-rate service contract does not exclude the occurrence of damage and the liability of the infringer and does not affect the amount of damage incurred (or its compensation). Since the appellate court departed from the established case law in resolving this issue, the Supreme Court annulled its decision and the decision of the court of first instance and returned the case for further proceedings.
- The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic in its judgment file no. 25 Cdo 600/2026 of 28 April 2026 dealt with the issue of suspending the limitation period for a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage to health, if this claim is not precisely quantified in the lawsuit. In the present case, the plaintiff asserted a claim against the attorney for compensation for damage caused by the fact that the attorney did not properly instruct the plaintiff as a client that the appeal does not have a suspensive effect and that in the event of failure to comply with the obligation, enforcement may be conducted against the client, which subsequently actually took place. The non-pecuniary damage consisted of a mental disorder associated with collapses and sudden loss of consciousness with the risk of falling, in response to the stress of the execution.
- The plaintiff had already factually described the claim for bodily injury in the 2018 lawsuit, but he did not add its amount until 2023, as the determination of the amount depended on an expert opinion, which he could not have obtained earlier. The appellate court considered the additionally quantified claim to be time-barred, but the Supreme Court emphasized that the lack of a specific quantification represents only a remediable defect in the action, not alteration of the claim. If the claim is factually defined, the limitation period is suspended from the filing of the action, provided that any defects in the claim are subsequently removed and the plaintiff continues the proceedings properly – this was fulfilled in the present case. As the appellate court departed from the established case law, the Supreme Court annulled its decision in the contested part and referred the case back for further proceedings.
- In its judgment file no. 23 Cdo 491/2025 of 31 March 2026, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether an obligation to conclude a performance contract arises under Section 1786 of the Civil Code if the invitation to conclude such contract is linked to a draft contract that deviates from the contract on a future contract, in particular with regard to the person of the contracting party or other essential elements.
- The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant on the blocking deposit, which also contained an obligation to conclude a purchase contract for real estate (a contract a on future contract). In the event of a breach of this obligation, a contractual penalty in the amount of the deposit was agreed. The defendant invited the plaintiff to conclude a purchase contract by sending them proposal, in which, however, it designated a third party as the buyer (specifically a company in which the plaintiff is the sole executive and shareholder). The plaintiff did not accept such a proposal, and the purchase contract was not concluded, but the defendant applied a contractual penalty, which it set off against the deposit.
- The Supreme Court concluded that the invitation to conclude a contract must correspond to a contract on a future contract. A notice that deviates from the agreed content of the future contract (whether in the person of the contracting party or in other essential elements) does not have the effects of a call within the meaning of Section 1786 of the Civil Code and does not create an obligation for the other party to conclude the contract. Therefore, the failure to conclude such a contract does not constitute a breach of obligation, and therefore no entitlement to a contractual penalty (and a justified set-off of the deposit) could arise. At the same time, according to the Supreme Court, if the content of the future contract was agreed only in general terms and there was no agreement between the parties on its specification, it would not be possible to sanction one of the parties for not concluding the contract, but the entitled party could only seek the determination of its content by the court, not by applying a contractual penalty. Therefore, it annulled the contested decision in the part concerning the claim for the return of the blocking deposit and returned the case to the appellate court for further proceedings.
