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 [August 2025]: The Supreme Court dealt with the amount of overtime pay
The August selection of case law includes a decision of the Supreme Court, in which it specified that the premium for overtime work for employees outside the public sector is determined according to a different legal regulation than the courts originally applied. In another decision, it dealt with the interpretation of the content of the agreement on termination of employment with regard to the actual will of the contracting parties. Subsequently, it assessed liability for a breach of the ban on competition, which it inferred directly from a member of the statutory body, not from the legal entity in whose favour it acted. Finally, it commented on the question of when the court is entitled to examine the ability of the donor to fulfil the promise of a financial donation as part of debt relief.
- In its judgment file no. 21 Cdo 817/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with the amount of overtime pay. The plaintiff worked as a building manager for a private university, while the employer required him to work overtime. The courts accepted the plaintiff’s claim because the defendant’s attendance records did not meet all the requirements. On the contrary, the plaintiff proved that according to the employment contract, he also worked on weekends and that his weekly working time fund of 40 hours was used up from Monday to Friday. The courts pointed out that electronic attendance is not relevant in the case, among other things, because the plaintiff did not have to record the arrivals and departures because he used a service apartment in one of the defendant’s buildings. The amount was determined by the courts as 50% of average earnings pursuant to Section 127 para. 1 of the Labour Code. However, the defendant filed an appeal because, according to her, the courts in the same case of the plaintiff’s wife decided the opposite and found that the defendant recorded working hours according to the law. The Supreme Court concluded that in the case of the plaintiff’s wife, the courts based their decision on a completely different factual situation. In this case, it was proven that the plaintiff’s wife could not work overtime. However, the Supreme Court found the appeal admissible and justified in the matter of the amount of overtime pay. The courts should have calculated the amount pursuant to Section 118 para. 1 of the Labour Code, not according to Section 127 para. 1 of the Labour Code, which applies to employees who are provided with a salary. The plaintiff was not that.
- In case file no. 21 Cdo 1451/2024, the Supreme Court dealt with the interpretation of legal acts. The plaintiff entered into an agreement to terminate employment for organizational reasons. During the proceedings, it came to light that the parties had repeatedly discussed the content of the agreement in order to entitle the plaintiff to unemployment benefits. The evidence was therefore conducted on the real intention of the parties. The Court of Appeal found that there was no room for interpretation of the provisions of the agreement and at the same time rejected the witness testimonies as irrelevant. The Supreme Court stated that every legal act is open to interpretation. At the same time, he stated that the court of appeal should have repeated the witness testimonies if it wanted to deviate from the facts established by the court of first instance.
- In its judgment file no. 27 Cdo 127/2024, the Supreme Court dealt with the prohibition of competition under Section 5 (1) of the Business Corporations Act. The plaintiff’s executive was a partner and executive director of the defendant. The Supreme Court dealt with whether the liability for the breach of the ban on competition lies with the legal entity in whose favour the infringer (member of the statutory body) acted. The court concluded that the benefit under Section 5 para. 1 of the Business Corporations Act is only the performance received by the infringer himself, not by the person for whose benefit he acted. Therefore, it is not possible to sue a legal entity, but only the violator (executive) himself.
- In case file no. 29 NSČR 27/2025-B-157, the Supreme Court dealt with a gift to the debtor’s estate for the purposes of debt relief. The third party undertook to contribute CZK 5,500 per month to the debtor for the duration of the approved debt relief. Despite repeated requests, the debtor did not prove the ability of this person to provide the gift. Therefore, the insolvency court did not approve the debtor’s debt relief and discontinued the proceedings. The Supreme Court found that if the gift provided is the only income from which the debtor will repay the debtors to creditors, then the insolvency court is entitled to request an assessment of the person’s ability to perform under the donation agreement before approving debt relief. Information that the donor does not receive a pension or social benefits, that he is not registered as a job seeker, that he is a self-employed person and that no execution or insolvency proceedings are conducted against him, does not in itself prove the assumption that the donation agreement will be performed.
