Legal News [October 2021]: The Constitutional Court confirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Czech Post employee wages
The Constitutional Court agreed with the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of equal remuneration of the Czech Post employees. The Supreme Court concluded that the attorney is still liable for the damage caused by the defective wording of the prayer for relief in an action, which was rejected as a result. The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of approval of the acquisition of treasury shares by the general meeting. Read the October Legal News to learn more about these and other cases.
The key decision is the Constitutional Court’s ruling confirming the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of equal remuneration of the Czech Post employees (I. ÚS 2820/20). The Constitutional Court concluded that the application of provisions of the Labour Code which do not allow differential remuneration on the basis of geographical criteria are not contrary to the Constitution. It is entirely at the legislator’s discretion what equal remuneration criteria are included in the law. If geographical criteria are to be taken into account, the law must be amended.
Shares and Shareholders
The Supreme Court has ruled on the approval of the acquisition of treasury shares by the general meeting under Case No. 27 Cdo 3349/2020. It concluded that if such a resolution of the general meeting is adopted subsequently, it is considered as if it had not been adopted. Acquisition in this context means not only the acquisition of the right of ownership but also the commencement of a legally binding stage of the process, for example a public proposal.
The Supreme Court has again commented on the issue of the shareholders’ right to information (Case No. 27 Cdro 3812/2019), confirming that the exercise of this right should take place at the general meeting. Therefore, if the questioning shareholder does not attend the general meeting, the board of directors is not obliged to answer the question to the other shareholders present. Subsequently, the question can only be answered if the complexity condition is met.
Liability for Damage, Compensation, Damages and Non-property Loss
In the matter of the attorney’s liability for damage, the Supreme Court concluded (Case No. 25 Cdo 3471/2020) that the attorney remains liable for damage caused by the defective wording of the prayer for relief in an action, which was consequently dismissed. It does not matter that the action was an action in proceedings for the judicial sale of a pledge, which is only the first step in the exercise of the creditor’s right of lien.
The Supreme Court has also addressed the issue of the statute of limitations on damages in a situation where such damages were claimed within the limitation period only in the context of a criminal complaint lodged with the police, but not in a civil action (Case No. 21 Cdo 709/2021). The civil action was brought after the limitation period had expired, on the basis of the results of the investigation of the criminal complaint lodged with the police, which did not result in the suspect being charged. In such a situation, the Supreme Court concluded that the claim was timely filed and not time-barred, since in this respect, the civil proceedings were a “continuation” of the criminal proceedings which ended with the adjournment of the case.
In its judgment No. 23 Cdo 836/2021, the Supreme Court follows its decisions on compensation for property damage on the grounds of pre-contractual liability (in particular 29 Odo 1166/2004). The Court repeated that, under the old Civil Code, such damage includes, in particular, unusual costs associated with the negotiation of a contract, for example at the request of the other contracting party. This includes, for example, costs associated with the initiation of steps to implement a project of which the other contracting party has been notified. The new Civil Code already contains its own rules on compensation for pre-contractual liability.
In its judgment No. 25 Cdo 3470/2019, the Supreme Court concluded that it is not obligatory to compensate for personal injury caused by necessary defence. The previous conditional discontinuance of criminal prosecution in respect of the identical conduct (act), which the civil court is not bound by, is not decisive for this conclusion.
Other Case Law News
- In the judgment in Case No. 22 Cdo 2105/2020, the Supreme Court clarifies the rules for the settlement of the inputs and yields of a plant included in the community property on the date of dissolution of the community property.
- In its judgment in Case No. 26 Cdo 761/2021, the Supreme Court concluded that, under the new Civil Code, non-use of a rental apartment is not a reason for lease termination, not even as “other compelling reason”.
- The price of work may be agreed by the parties partly as a fixed price and partly as an estimate. Substantial exceeding of the part of the price determined by the estimate then constitutes a reason for the client’s withdrawal from the contract (Supreme Court, Case No. 33 Cdo 2869/2020).
- The Supreme Court has commented on the issue of the length of administrative proceedings for the determination of a legal relationship pursuant to Section 142 of the Code of Administrative Procedure in its judgment, Case No. 30 Cdo 3489/2020. According to the Supreme Court, the right of the parties to reasonable length under Article 6 of the European Convention applies to such proceedings as well. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasised that the authorised inspector is not an administrative authority within a “shortened construction procedure”, therefore a certificate issued by them is not a decision of an administrative authority but rather a performance under a contract.
At Deloitte Legal, we carefully analyse recent court decisions, new case law and legislation. If you are interested in discussing any case law or legal news with us, please do not hesitate to contact us.