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 [February 2025]: Rejection of a claim for the grant of necessary access
The Supreme Court, in a series of its latest rulings, addressed key issues of civil law – from the rejection of a claim for the grant of necessary access due to gross negligence, to liability arising from operational collisions under Hungarian law, and issues surrounding the placement of a communication path on another's property, to the transfer of the right to a contractual penalty when a claim is assigned to an insurer. Some cases were also remanded for further proceedings with the requirement for more thorough examination.
- The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, in its judgment ref. no. 22 Cdo 1833/2024, dealt with the issue of the rejection of a claim for the grant of necessary access, as the claimant allegedly caused the lack of access to the acquired properties from a public path through gross negligence under § 1032 paragraph 1 letter b) of the Civil Code. The dispute involved the situation where the claimant acquired the relevant property connected to a purpose-built communication path while proceedings on granting necessary access were ongoing. The appellate court concluded that at the time of acquiring the properties, the claimant was aware of the absence of a private law title authorizing access from the public path. It also took into account that, at the time of acquiring the properties, the claimant was a businesswoman, among other things, in the field of real estate activities. The Supreme Court concluded that it is essential to consider that the claimant had ensured factual access to the acquired properties at the time of acquisition (no one prevented the claimant from accessing the properties). In such a case, it cannot be ruled out that the claimant’s access was ensured (at least temporarily) based on public law authorization deriving from the existence of the purpose-built communication path located in a closed area under § 7 paragraph 2 of the Roads Act. In other words, if the applicant for necessary access had access from the public path to the acquired properties based on public law authorization (possibly temporarily), this fact can be considered while assessing their actions in connection with securing access as a factor in their favor. The Supreme Court further noted that at the time of the claimant’s acquisition of the properties, established case law providing solutions for the legal issue of ensuring access to a structure not adequately connected to a public path tended to assess the applicant’s culpable action rather leniently and reject undesirable actions into setting an appropriate compensation for establishing necessary access. For these reasons, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court’s decision that the claimant caused the lack of access from the public path to the properties due to gross negligence under § 1032 paragraph 1 letter b) of the Civil Code was incorrect.
- In its judgment, ref. no. 25 Cdo 685/2023, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of liability from operational collisions of means of transport under Hungarian civil law, which had not been addressed by the Supreme Court before. The dispute involved a traffic accident in Hungary where a Hungarian vehicle, insured for liability for damage caused by motor vehicle operation with the defendant (ČSOB), collided with the claimant’s vehicle. The first-instance and appellate courts judged that the defendant was exempted from the duty to compensate the claimant for the damage. The Supreme Court agreed with the claimant that even incorrect application of foreign law can establish the admissibility of an appeal, as the opposite approach would lead to the unacceptable denial of justice and disadvantage those parties in cases applying foreign law versus those whose cases do not involve foreign law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that neither the conclusions of the first-instance court nor the appellate court were consistent with the interpretation of Hungarian law within Hungary, thus remanding the case back to the first-instance court for further proceedings.
- In its judgment, ref. no. 22 Cdo 2503/2024, the Supreme Court dealt with the possibility of placing a land communication path as an independent entity in legal terms on another’s land without the owner’s consent. The case involved the establishment of a local communication path without the original owner’s consent, which was subsequently reclaimed by the original owner in restitution. The Supreme Court reminded that if a local communication path, which is a structure in terms of civil law, and thus a legal entity, leads through land owned by a different person than the owner of the local communication path, it is necessary to distinguish between the question of the right to have a communication path structure on another’s land and a potential claim arising from unauthorized placement of the communication path structure on another’s land on one hand, and the right to use this local communication path on the other hand. It is necessary to examine whether (if) the local communication path was established under any legal title. If it was established without authorization, i.e., without a legal title, the reclaiming owner has the right to demand the cessation of such use. The case was remanded to the appellate court for further consideration of the aforementioned issue.
- In its decision ref. no. 23 Cdo 1887/2023, the Supreme Court addressed whether, under § 2820 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, the right to a contractual penalty for the debtor’s delay with the payment of the insured claim, which arises after the payment of the insurance benefit, also transfers to the insurer. The Supreme Court confirmed that when the claim is transferred to the insurer under § 2820 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, it includes all rights and securities belonging to it. This means that along with the claim, the insurer acquires the right to a contractual penalty, which serves to secure the fulfillment of the debt. Since the contractual penalty is directly tied to the claim, its fate cannot be separated from the fate of the claim itself. Quantitative limitation on the transfer of the claim, i.e., up to the amount of the paid insurance benefit, does not apply to the contractual penalty arising after this transfer. The insurer can then assert claims for the contractual penalty under § 2048 of the Civil Code even after the statutory assignment occurs. If the debtor continues to default on their debt after the payment of the insurance benefit to the entitled party, i.e., from the moment of the claim’s transfer under § 2820 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, the insurer is entitled to the contractual penalty accrued for this period.
