Legal knowledge in practice

Under Section 1017 of the Civil Code, neighbors must refrain from planting trees in close proximity to the land boundary. The law establishes a simple rule:

The new legislation implements the European DMFS Directive and focuses on information clarity and transparency of the digital environment. A key innovation is the so-called. an “opt out button” and a ban on manipulative online practices. The law is due to come into force in June 2026. The Chamber of Deputies will discuss the proposal in the coming months.

The government has tabled an amendment to the Consumer Protection Act and the Civil Code, taking over the new rules from the EU. In practice, this means the end of free claims such as “eco”, “sustainable” with no verifiable basis, a ban on false or manipulated reviews and penalties for hidden “bullets” that shorten the life of products.

K zániku společného jmění manželů (dále jen „ SJM “) může dojít podle zákona č. 89/2012 Sb., občanský zákoník (dále jen „ OZ “), na základě několika právních skutečností, přičemž jednou z nich je rozvod manželství. Kromě toho může SJM zaniknout i smrtí jednoho z manželů či výjimečně soudním rozhodnutím bez nutnosti rozvodu manželství. Tento článek se věnuje problematice vypořádání SJM v případě smrti jednoho z manželů v rámci dědického řízení, jakož i problematice vypořádání vnosů a investic v dědickém řízení.

Data on beneficial owners remain available, in particular, to public authorities and obliged entities under AML regulations (e.g. banks or lawyers) via remote access and to those who demonstrate a legitimate interest. The change was made in response to the case law of the Czech supreme courts, following a ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU, according to which unrestricted public access constituted an unreasonable intrusion on privacy. The obligation of companies to have the beneficial owner duly registered and to update the data on an ongoing basis remains unaffected.

The Constitutional Court in its finding of 26 November 2025, sp. no. The pl. ÚS 31/24, rejected the Supreme Court's motion to repeal the provision of Section 41 (3) of the Labour Code, which allows an employer to transfer an employee even without his consent to a type of work other than that agreed in the employment contract — typically, for example, in a situation where the employee is unable to perform his original job due to his health condition. The Supreme Court argued that this arrangement conflicted with the right to free choice of profession and the right not to be subjected to slavery, serfdom, and forced labor and service.