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 [July 2025]: The Supreme Court ruled on the non-admission of the testimony of a key witness
The July selection of four Supreme Court rulings offers a variety of legal considerations. It deals, among other things, with the conflict of public and private law in the case of unapproved real estate or the tenant's right to use a servitude. In the area of labour law, the court criticised the non-admission of the testimony of a key witness, namely a child, and pointed out the need to respect the principle of immediacy. Furthermore, the importance of specific proceedings in determining reasonable satisfaction for the delay in court proceedings was taken into account in favour of the plaintiff with limited purchasing power. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the wall separating the housing units is a common part of the house and the owners cannot arbitrarily interfere with its condition.
- In its judgment file no. 22 Cdo 985/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with the relationship between public and private law. The Court of Appeal concluded that the property that has not been approved does not entitle the tenant to use the easement of the trail. If the property has not been issued with an occupancy permit, it cannot be used or left for use by another. An easement benefiting the owner cannot be used by other persons – tenants of the property that has not been approved. However, the Supreme Court concluded, on the basis of established case law, that such a conclusion was not correct. Violation of public law regulations does not prevent the establishment of private-law relationships. The absence of an occupancy permit does not prevent the creation of a lease. It is also possible for the tenant to use access to the property. According to the Supreme Court, it does not affect even if the letting of the thing for use is agreed free of charge. If third parties extend the scope of the easement, the owner of the encumbered land may defend himself by filing an action against the owner of the dominant land.
- In its judgment file no. 21 Cdo 34/2025, the Supreme Court assessed the non-admission of witness testimony proposed by a party. The case concerned the determination of the invalidity of the immediate termination of the plaintiff’s employment due to assault on a child in the care of the employer (educational institution). The plaintiff claimed that he had not committed any conduct. The District Court and the Court of Appeal refrained from questioning the child, as the plaintiff’s conduct had been proven in other ways (indirect testimony, record of the injured party’s explanation). The courts pointed out that the fear that the plaintiff would return to an institution could affect the child’s testimony. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the courts had proceeded contrary to the principle of immediacy and had evaluated the credibility of the victim’s allegations solely on the basis of documentary evidence and the testimonies of persons who should have learned about the attack from the injured party. The courts thus denied the plaintiff a real opportunity to prove his claims. The fact that the fear of the plaintiff’s return could affect the testimony should have been taken into account by the courts when evaluating it, not when considering whether to admit such evidence. It is therefore not possible to replace direct evidence with indirect evidence and thus de facto deny the plaintiff the opportunity to bear his burden of proof.
- In judgment file no. 30 Cdo 3497/2024, the Supreme Court dealt with the possibility of increasing reasonable satisfaction. The plaintiff sought compensation for the delays in the proceedings, which lasted 25 years and 9 months. She argued that the court should have taken into account the importance of the proceedings when calculating the compensation because the value of its subject (real estate) was significantly higher than the plaintiff’s purchasing power. The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal and the District Court should not have rejected the reference to the value of the subject matter of the proceedings across the board, but should have considered the overall financial circumstances of the injured party.
- In its decision file no. 26 Cdo 3153/2024-86, the Supreme Court addressed the question of the conditions under which it is possible to connect two housing units by carrying out construction work. In this case, the owners broke through the transverse wall in the apartment building that separated the units. The Supreme Court concluded that this wall is a common part of the house and not part of the housing units it separates. According to the Supreme Court, it is not decisive whether the wall is load-bearing. It is sufficient that it demarcates and thus separates the housing units. The association of unit owners therefore has the right to demand the removal of the building modification – i.e. the restoration of the walls to their original state.
