Law
Legal News [April 2026]: Is a study agreement a consumer contract?
In the April overview, we bring you four case law from different areas of law. The Supreme Court first departed from its previous practice and assessed a contract for study at a private higher education institution as a consumer contract, thus opening up space for the review of contractual provisions through the lens of consumer protection. In another decision, it defined when the employer's claim for damages against the employee can be assigned, specified the beginning of the period for depositing security in an incidental dispute and at the same time confirmed that the co-owner may independently enforce the issuance of unjust enrichment for the use of the common property in its entirety.
- In the judgment No. 31 Cdo 1737/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether a study contract concluded between a private higher education institution and a student can be described as a consumer contract, and concluded that it is true if it concerns the provision of higher education for a fee paid mainly by tuition fees. By doing so, it departed from its previous case law, annulled the decision of the Court of Appeal and returned the case to it for further proceedings, stating that the arrangements on the automatic resumption of studies after interruption, on the obligation to pay tuition fees for the entire academic year and on the contractual penalty must be newly assessed through the lens of consumer protection, not only according to good morals or the Higher Education Act.
- In the judgment No. 21 Cdo 202/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with whether it is possible to assign an employer’s claim against an employee for damages and when it is still a labour law claim. It concluded that the prohibition of assignment under Section 346d (1) of the Civil Code. 4 of the Labour Code also applies to claims for damages under Part Eleven of the Labour Code, but only if the damage was caused during the performance of work tasks or in direct connection with it. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the dismissal of the action regarding the damage caused by the fire in the amount of CZK 82,339, but annulled the decision of the lower courts in the part concerning the amounts of CZK 494,649 and CZK 23,714 as well as the subsequent contractual penalty, because the courts did not sufficiently examine the allegation that the defendant used the funds entrusted to her for her own needs and acted with the intention of enriching herself at the expense of the employer, which would mean going beyond the limits of the performance of work tasks and would open up space for the civil law regime and the admissibility of the assignment of such a claim.
- The Supreme Court in its judgment No. 29 ICdo 103/2025 focused on the question of when the time limit for lodging a security for the costs of an incidental dispute begins to run after a claim has been contested, and concluded that the decisive moment is the moment of the end of the review hearing on the receivable, not the subsequent “further” review hearing on another claim. Therefore, it upheld the appellate court’s conclusion that the time limit had already begun to run on 21 November 2024 and that the plaintiff had lodged the security belatedly, so his action was correctly dismissed.
- In the resolution file no. 22 Cdo 1248/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with whether the filing of an action for unjust enrichment for the use of an item in co-ownership is the administration of a common property and whether such a claim can be asserted by one co-owner alone. The Supreme Court concluded that this is not the administration of a common cause, so the lawsuit may be filed by any co-owner without a prior decision of the others, while the claim of the co-owners for the release of unjust enrichment is joint and several and each of the co-owners may enforce it against the third party in its entirety.
