By: Amanda Marku
February 10, 2026 3 min read
The Supreme Court’s decision of 30 September 2025, Case No. 21 Cdo 1325/2025, significantly clarified the interpretation of employers’ obligations in the area of occupational safety and health (OSH). Specifically, the decision applies to all employers using external workers (e.g. cleaning services, technical services, etc.).
The Supreme Court dealt with a case where an external worker (self-employed), hired through another company, performed a subcontract for cleaning in a transformation plant. The external worker was not trained on the risks and safety rules of the facility before starting work. This resulted in the use of unsuitable work tools, leading to a serious electric shock.
The company denied its responsibility, arguing that the external worker was under contract with another entity and the obligation to properly train the worker rested with the direct contractor.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the company’s argument outright. It stated that the employer has a duty to ensure the safety not only of its own employees but also of all persons who are on the premises of the workplace with its knowledge. It is irrelevant whether the person present at the workplace is performing activities independently, in their own name and on their own account and responsibility.
It also explicitly stated that the obligation to ensure OSH cannot be contractually transferred to another entity. If the employer allows an outsider to enter the premises, he is responsible for his safety and must ensure that such person is properly informed, trained and protected.
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.
The Supreme Court clarifies that loan interest payments made before insolvency do not automatically constitute preferential treatment if they arise from an economically balanced contractual relationship.
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...
