Právní poznání v praxi

This article presents the current case law on acquiring another person's land by prescription where the boundaries between plots have not been physically marked out or have been marked out incorrectly. It does not address the conditions for an action to determine disputed boundaries; it concerns cases in which the boundaries have been marked out and their course is not in dispute, but in which, until they were marked out, the plots were used inconsistently with them.

The question of the determinacy and intelligibility of contracts for work has arisen many times in the decision-making practice of Nejvyšší soud (the Supreme Court), and the case law on the point may be described as settled. The part of such contracts most frequently assessed by the Supreme Court for determinacy is the definition of the subject matter of the work itself - what is in fact to be produced. That is hardly surprising, since for the customer, too, what matters most (besides the price) is what he is to receive from the contractor in return for his (typically financial) performance.

The Institute of Contractual Penalty is an important instrument in civil law for the consolidation of obligations. Its function is primarily preventive, punitive and hedging, the purpose of which is to motivate the debtor to fulfill the obligation, while at the same time providing the creditor with the assurance of quick and relatively easy satisfaction in the event of a breach of obligation. At the same time, however, there is a danger of excessive contractual penalties, which would lead to a disproportionate burden on the debtor. Therefore, the legislator in Section 2051 of the Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as “OZ”) enshrined the possibility of moderation of the contractual penalty.

In a recent decision (27 Cdo 1993/2023), the Supreme Court clarified an important question: can a tax administrator demand payment of a public debt — such as a fine — directly from a company executive if he has breached his duty of care to a proper manager?

Objective liability of the vehicle operator is an important institution of administrative law, which serves to effectively punish road traffic violations, especially in cases where it is not possible to identify the specific offender. This legal institute was introduced by an amendment to Act No. 361/2000 Coll., on Traffic on Road Roads (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Traffic on Road Roads”), effective from 19 January 2013.

The Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as the “OZ”) regulates the institution of subletting in two places, in the general provisions on rent (§ 2215 and § 2216) and in the subsection on the special provisions on the rent of an apartment and house (§ 2274-2278).