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 [September 2025]: The Supreme Court dealt with a case of dismissal due to fictitious redundancy
The September review of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence brings four important decisions in the field of labour, civil and procedural law. The court dealt with the conditions for the validity of a dismissal for redundancy in a situation where the employee explicitly refuses another job classification. In the area of rights in rem, it confirmed the possibility of holding a building established on the basis of the right of construction as an independent immovable property. The procedural decision then emphasizes the necessity of indicating the date of insertion of the document into the mailbox for the effectiveness of service. Last but not least, the court commented on the conditions of extraordinary prescription, defining the difference between honest intent and good faith of the holder.
- In its judgment file no. 21 Cdo 1850/2024, the Supreme Court dealt with the case of fictitious redundancy as a reason for termination. Specifically, it dealt with whether the employer must offer the employee another job position, even though it already knows the employee’s position on remaining in employment. The defendant dismissed the plaintiff from the position of race manager due to his health condition and qualifications. The plaintiff questioned the veracity of the defendant’s claim that there was no other position for him corresponding to his health condition and qualifications. According to the Supreme Court, the employer made a mistake because he could only give one reason for dismissal, but this does not cause the dismissal to be invalid. At the same time, the plaintiff himself informed the defendant that he was only interested in the work of the director. Therefore, the defendant was not obliged to make an offer of another suitable job. The Supreme Court stated that the presumption of fictitious redundancy of an employee consisting in the refusal of work corresponding to the employee’s health condition and qualifications is fulfilled in this situation, even if the employer did not accept the offer of a new job classification.
- The Supreme Court in its judgment file no. 22 Cdo 2059/2023 addressed the issue of the retention of ownership rights to a building established on the basis of the right of construction. Both the finding and appellate courts concluded that the defendants retained the ownership right to the family house for ten years after the resolution on the settlement of the inheritance came into force at the latest. The testator and her husband acquired the right to build as a gift in 1954 from their ancestors, who bought it in 1939. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the building established on the basis of the right of construction was considered to be a separate immovable property at the time of its transfer to the defendants. The plaintiff disagreed with this conclusion and filed an appeal. The Supreme Court stated that the building was perceived by the state authorities as a separate matter and could therefore be the subject of possession and usufruct. At the same time, he pointed out that the importance of the right of construction gradually disappeared from legal consciousness during the period of socialist law. At the time of the notary’s decision on inheritance, the right of construction was understood more as a right of obligation. However, the Supreme Court reminded that according to the old Civil Code, which abandoned the principle of “superficies solo cedit”, it was possible to transfer the building independently. In this particular case, the building was also understood in inheritance proceedings. The Supreme Court therefore rejected the appeal.
- In its resolution file no. 27 Cdo 1526/2024, the Supreme Court dealt with service by means of a drop in the mailbox. The Supreme Court stated that in the case of service of a document other than those intended for personal use, the law allows for service even if the serving authority does not reach the addressee of the document at the address for service. In such a case, it is sufficient for the serving authority to place the document in the mailbox used by the addressee. The meaning and purpose is to inform the court on what day the document is deemed to have been served on the addressee. At the same time, it is information necessary to determine the beginning of the time limit for filing an appeal against the decision to be served. With regard to the described meaning and purpose of the statutory requirement to indicate the date of insertion on documents, it is not possible to consider a document to have been served on the day it is placed in the mailbox if the date of insertion is not marked on it by the serving authority.
- In its decision file no. 22 Cdo 1820/2025, the Supreme Court resolved a dispute over the determination of ownership of a neighboring plot of land that had been used by the plaintiffs’ family since 1947, although another owner was registered in the land registry. The plaintiffs claimed that they had acquired a share in the land by usufruct. The district and regional courts dismissed the action, stating that the plaintiffs could not have been in good faith, as the land was clearly separated from their properties and exceeded them in its area. In addition, since 1993 they must have known that it was a separate plot. The Supreme Court confirmed that the proper prescription was not fulfilled and the period of possession of predecessors cannot be counted if they have already endured themselves. However, it pointed out that the lower courts had incorrectly interpreted the institute of extraordinary maintenance under Section 1095 of the Civil Code. This does not require proof of good faith, but only that there is no lack of honest intention when seizing possession. It is not decisive that the holder later learns that another person is registered in the land register – this fact in itself does not make the possession dishonest. Moreover, the burden of proof regarding dishonest intent lies with the person who denies the sustainability.
