Provisions of the Czech Civil Code on laesio enormis (Sections 1793-1795) shall not apply to (company) share transfers, irrespective whether listed on an (European) regulated market. This is the judgment of the Czech Supreme Court of 16 March 2021, case No. 27 Cdo 451/2012, published in the Collection of Court Judgments and Opinions under No. 17/2022. As a consequence, neither the buyer nor the seller is able to challenge the transfer and seek cancellation of the share transfer agreement arguing that value of the shares is grossly disproportionate to the purchase price.
top of page
BEDRNA / BALARIN & PARTNERS
attorneys at law
Legal guidance from a trusted team of professionals
The equal pay rule as provided by the Czech Labour Code does not allow for exemptions with regard to the region where employees perform their work. This is the conclusion of the Czech Supreme Court judgment of 20 July 2020, case No. 21 Cdo 3955/2018, published in the Collection of Court Judgments and Opinions on 29 January 2021 under No. 89/2021. Thus, employers cannot justify different remuneration to employees for the same work by different cost of living in locations of workplace of its employees.
The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic answered the question whether the new Czech Civil Code entitles the landlord to terminate tenancy on the grounds that the tenant does not use the rented apartment. Whereas the previous Civil Code of 1964 (Act No. 40/1964 Coll.) addressed the situation as a legal cause for tenancy termination, the New Civil Code (Act No. 89/2012 Coll.) does not take any explicit position. Nevertheless, it had been suggested to maintain the older approach, i.e. that failing to use the apartment actively shall constitute a breach of tenant’s obligation to properly occupy the apartment. However, in the judgment of 9 June 2021 (case No. 26 Cdo 761/2021), the Supreme Court dismissed such attitude and ruled that it is the right, not obligation of the tenant to use (occupy) the rented property. The landlord is not entitled to terminate tenancy agreement for the mere reason that the tenant left the apartment vacant or lived there only occasionally. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court did not exclude that in special circumstances it could be ruled otherwise, e.g. in case of a social housing where a number of applicants are on the waiting list.
bottom of page