Harassment instead of oversight: when the right to inspect owners' association records becomes a weapon

A story that plays out in many apartment buildings

Imagine a flat owner convinced that the board of the owners' association (společenství vlastníků jednotek, SVJ) manages its finances without transparency. He decides to exercise his statutory right to inspect the documentation — specifically the records of remuneration paid to members of the association's bodies for 2016 to 2021. It sounds like a legitimate step by a responsible owner, doesn't it? Yet in this case Czech courts at three levels reached a surprising but legally well-reasoned conclusion: the exercise of this right was vexatious and therefore enjoys no legal protection.

The case, concluded by the Czech Supreme Court in its resolution file no. 26 Cdo 1769/2025 of 3 March 2026, is a textbook example of how a formally correct procedure can in fact be an abuse of rights. And for every entrepreneur, developer or property manager it is a warning worth heeding.

What the law says: Section 1179 of the Civil Code

A unit owner's right to inspect the association's documents is enshrined in Section 1179 of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Czech Civil Code. It is an important tool of transparency — every member of the association has the right to know how common funds are handled, what remuneration elected officers receive and how the building is managed.

This right is real and enforceable, and the courts respect it in principle. The problem arises when a tool of oversight becomes a tool of harassment.

Where does abuse of rights begin?

Section 8 of the Czech Civil Code states clearly: manifest abuse of a right enjoys no legal protection. But what does this mean in practice? In its settled case law, the Supreme Court has defined abuse of rights as a situation where:

• the right is exercised contrary to its purpose,
• the holder of the right has no real interest, or only a negligible one, in exercising it,
• the main or predominant motivation is the intention to harm or disadvantage the obliged person,
• in its extreme form, it is so-called chicanery — exercising a right in order to harm the other party.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed these conclusions, for example in its judgment file no. 26 Cdo 1767/2024 of 25 September 2024 or in its judgment file no. 22 Cdo 5159/2014, published as No. 101/2016 of the Collection of Court Decisions and Opinions.

What convinced the court in this case?

The lower courts — the District Court for Plzeň-South (file no. 11 C 268/2023) and the Regional Court in Plzeň (file no. 64 Co 586/2024-226) — took extensive evidence and considered the overall context of the claimant's conduct. The key circumstances that led to the conclusion that the right was exercised vexatiously were in particular:

• The number of lawsuits: The claimant had brought a series of court cases against the association, and the courts even cited the specific file numbers of those proceedings in their reasoning.
• A flood of requests: The association was inundated with demands from the claimant, which were assessed in terms of content, clarity and form.
• Vague requests: The requests to inspect the records themselves were worded so vaguely that complying with them was practically problematic.

The court thus did not assess this one lawsuit in isolation, but the claimant's overall pattern of conduct towards the association. And it was precisely this context that was decisive.

Why did the Supreme Court reject the appeal on points of law?

The claimant tried to overturn the unfavourable decisions by an appeal on points of law (dovolání) to the Supreme Court. The Court rejected it as inadmissible under Section 243c(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for several reasons:

First, the court of appeal's conclusion on manifest abuse of rights was not manifestly unreasonable — and that is the key standard in appellate review. The Supreme Court can question an assessment of abuse of rights only if it is manifestly unreasonable in light of the facts established. That was not the case here.

Second, in his appeal the claimant challenged the legal assessment through factual objections — he disagreed with the findings on the existence of other disputes, the scope of his requests and his subjective motivation. Such an approach cannot succeed in appellate review, because the evaluation of evidence itself, based on the principle of free evaluation enshrined in Section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be successfully challenged by an appeal on points of law (see the Supreme Court judgment file no. 31 Cdo 3375/2015, published as No. 78/2018 of the Collection of Court Decisions and Opinions).

Third, the question of the time limit for compliance under Section 1179 of the Civil Code (whether the association must comply without undue delay even if the request sets no specific deadline) could not establish admissibility of the appeal, because the contested decision did not depend on it — it was based primarily on the conclusion of abuse of rights.

What does this mean for flat owners and property managers?

This case offers an important lesson for both sides of housing disputes. For unit owners: The right to inspect the association's documentation is real and enforceable — but it must be exercised out of a genuine interest in transparency, not an effort to overwhelm and harass. If the courts find that your requests and lawsuits are driven mainly by an intention to cause harm, you will not get protection.

For associations and their managers: If you are the target of repeated, vague or purpose-driven requests and lawsuits, this does not automatically mean you must always comply. A legal defence based on abuse of rights under Section 8 of the Civil Code can be effective — but you must have sufficient documentation of the other party's overall pattern of conduct.

Practical recommendations

Whichever side you are on, the key is careful documentation. Keep all communication, record requests and their content, and track the number and subject of court proceedings. If you find yourself in a similar dispute, consult a lawyer before you file a lawsuit or face one — the context of the whole relationship can be just as important for the outcome as the right being disputed.

The right to inspect an owners' association's records is a valuable tool. But as this case shows, any tool can be misused — and the law responds to such an approach by refusing protection.

Source: Czech Supreme Court, 26 Cdo 1769/2025; Regional Court in Plzeň, 64 Co 586/2024-226; District Court for Plzeň-South, 11 C 268/2023-174.