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 [June 2025]: When should the Court of Appeal repeat witness statements?
In the June issue of Legal News, we bring you five interesting judgments that caught our attention last month with their impact on legal practice. The Supreme Court clarified that the pre-emptive right of the tenant of an apartment is not transferred to the heirs, but only to the persons listed in a special law. The Constitutional Court also focused on the reimbursement of the costs of proceedings in the event of a partial withdrawal of the action and emphasized the obligation of the courts to examine the degree of culpability. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to repeat the evidence if the appellate court evaluates the testimony differently. The Constitutional Court annulled the transitional provision of the Waste Act for its unconstitutional true retroactivity. And in the last judgment, the Supreme Court dealt with the moment of the beginning of the limitation period of the claim for compensation for damage caused by the executive.
- In the judgment file no. 24 Cdo 187/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of the pre-emptive right to the tenant of the apartment under the old Civil Code. It concluded that this right does not pass to the heirs, but only to the persons listed in the Apartment Ownership Act. In this case, to the decedent’s grandson, to whom the right to lease was also transferred.
- In its recent judgment file no. III. ÚS 2736/23, the Constitutional Court assessed the restitutionists’ claim for the transfer of substitute land and reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings. The courts partially upheld the action, and partly withdrew the lawsuit. Therefore, the District Court did not award any of the parties reimbursement of costs – the number and value of the land in respect of which the restitutionists were successful were similar. The Regional Court changed the decision on costs and ordered the Czech Republic – the State Land Office to reimburse the restituents for the costs of the proceedings in full. The Supreme Court rejected the Czech Republic’s appeal and the Czech Republic filed a constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court explained that in the event of withdrawal, the courts must deal with the degree of culpability of the party in withdrawing part of the claim. Failure to do so will violate the other party’s right to judicial protection.
- The Supreme Court in case file no. 22 Cdo 759/2025 assessed the evaluation of the witness testimony by the court of first instance and the subsequent different assessment of the court of appeal. The court of first instance described the testimony as tendentious, without making findings of fact. The Court of Appeal evaluated the testimony as credible. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court should have repeated the testimony in order to be able to make different findings of fact.
- In Decision file no. PL. ÚS 21/21 the Constitutional Court dealt with the transitional provision of the Waste Act. The Act deprived beneficiaries (municipalities and the State Environmental Fund) of the right to a part of the fee paid by waste producers for depositing waste in landfills under the older legislation effective before 1 January 2021. The Constitutional Court confirmed the general rule that inadmissible true retroactivity is also represented by situations where the legislator attempts to regulate legal facts that have completely occurred in the past on the grounds that the old legislation was unclear (so-called interpretative legislation). It therefore found the contested provision unconstitutional.
- In its judgment file no. 27 Cdo 952/2024, the Supreme Court dealt with the moment at which the company learns of the occurrence of damage with regard to the beginning of the limitation period. The plaintiff sought damages for breach of due managerial care from its former executives. This was allegedly caused by the payment of fictitious invoices. The Supreme Court referred to established case law, from which it follows that in the context of the Commercial Code, the limitation period begins to run at the moment when the shareholder became aware of the damage. This was because the interests of the statutory body were in conflict with the interests of the company. In the present case, however, it could not be ascertained from the invoices that they were fictitious. Shareholders are generally not obliged to act with due managerial care and therefore do not have to verify the true nature of invoices. Therefore, the limitation period did not begin to run at the time of approval of the financial statements and inspection of the accounts by the general meeting.
