By: Petr Berdych
May 20, 2025 6 min read
In its recent judgment[1], the Supreme Court confirmed that the basic principles of service of legal documents also apply to delivery by e-mail. It accentuated that the legal rule that a legal act is effective at the moment it enters the sphere of control of the addressee of the legal act also applies in the case of an e-mail.
In general, if no special method of service is required for the delivery of a legal act (e.g. by means of a data box), it may be made by any means that enables the addressee to become acquainted with it. This includes delivery by mail carrier, personal delivery, delivery to a data box, etc.
Delivery can also be made by e-mail, but only if certain conditions are met.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that service of legal documents by e-mail is possible if:
According to the Supreme Court, the choice of e-mail communication as a method of delivery carries certain risks. Should there be technical problems or other defects in delivery, the sender will be held responsible.
In the present case, it was undisputed between the parties that the e-mail was delivered. In other proceedings, however, the question of delivery may not be rendered indisputable.
An e-mail is delivered at the moment it reaches the sphere of control of the addressee, i.e. at the moment it is successfully delivered to the recipient’s mailbox. This usually occurs immediately after it is sent. This only applies if there are no objective obstacles to delivery. However, their existence may be difficult for the sender to verify.
The Supreme Court did not consider the vacation of a member of the statutory body as an objective obstacle to service, as the member of the statutory body of the company performs his function continuously and could have become acquainted with the e-mail after its delivery.
It can be assumed that the Supreme Court would not recognize any other personal reason of a member of the statutory body for not exercising his/her function (visiting a doctor, taking care of sick family members, etc.) as a reason preventing access to the e-mail. It will not be significant whether the member of the statutory body opens the e-mail box or not. As the Supreme Court has previously stated, delivery cannot be linked to the moment when the addressee is “willing” to collect the consignment and become acquainted with its contents, but to the objective possibility of the addressee to do so.[2]
Please note that not every mailbox, to which the addressee has access, can be considered to be used by the addressee, but only those that the addressee actually uses to receive mail.
Proving normal use of an email account by a user can be very difficult. It is therefore advisable to arrange the use of a specific e-mail box for delivery in advance, preferably in writing.
The decision of the Supreme Court confirms that e-mail delivery is a full-fledged method of communication, if the condition of normal use of the mailbox by the addressee is met.
However, delivery by email carries certain risks, particularly where the email is sent to an email address that the addressee has not explicitly disclosed to the sender for the purpose of delivery. Therefore, we recommend using a data box for easier proof of delivery and the time of delivery. If the addressee does not have a data box, it is advisable to deliver the document by registered mail or in person.
Members of statutory bodies can be validly served even during their “vacation.”
[1] Judgment of the Supreme Court 27 Cdo 3499/2023, available HERE
[2] Judgment of the Supreme Court 26 Cdo 2988/2011, available HERE
A shareholder's right to participate in profits is one of their fundamental rights. In practice, however, this may collide with the decision-making autonomy of the General Meeting, particularly in situations where a majority shareholder obstructs profit distribution.
Loyalty programme discounts are lawful, but unclear presentation of “club prices” may mislead consumers and expose traders to significant legal and regulatory risks.
FAQ: What Paid Leave Are You Entitled to at Work?
The Czech Supreme Court clarifies when employees removed from managerial positions are entitled to severance pay and how redundancy should be assessed.
The CJEU confirms that limitation periods for consumer claims based on unfair contract terms cannot begin before consumers can reasonably identify the unfairness.
New Button for Online Withdrawal from a Contract
The Czech National Bank clarifies the definition of “senior management” under ZISIF, providing guidance on approval requirements and governance for investment companies and funds.
The High Court in Prague has granted the request of the security system administrator, authorizing the use of technology enabling biometric recognition of individuals via CCTV and artificial intelligence algorithms within the monitored areas of Václava Havel Airport.
In February of this year, a new government bill on the forfeiture of assets of unexplained origin was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies. This legislation...
An amendment to Act No. 256/2004 Coll., on Capital Market Undertakings (hereinafter " ZPKT "), effective from June 6, 2026 , introduces new thresholds for...