By: Veronika Odrobinová, Tereza Pitterlingová
January 26, 2026 3 min read
In its judgment 21 Cdo 351/2024, the Supreme Court found that an agency employee’s claim for additional contributions to supplementary pension insurance during his temporary assignment was justified. The court reached the rather groundbreaking conclusion that pension insurance contributions are also part of the working and wage conditions within the meaning of Section 43a(6) of the Labor Code and are therefore subject to the principle of equal treatment between temporarily assigned employees and the user’s permanent employees. This contradicts, for example, the opinion of the expert panel of the Association for the Development of Collective Bargaining in Labor Relations and the methodology of the State Labor Inspection Office.
According to the Supreme Court, working and wage conditions cannot be interpreted solely as conditions narrowly defined in labour law regulations, but as all monetary payments and benefits that employers have undertaken to provide, for example, in their internal regulations. The decision represents a significant shift in the interpretation of the rights of agency workers and will have an impact on the widespread practice of employers using agency employment. It will therefore be necessary to reconsider the relatively established approach to what benefits to provide to agency employees and what benefits may no longer be necessary.
Strengthening the rights of agency employees in relation to employee benefits will result in higher wage costs for employers (agencies) who provide the relevant employee benefits to their agency workers. In any case, the same conditions for exemption from income tax apply to benefits for agency employees as for permanent employees, and agencies will have the same administrative obligations in their payroll records (e.g., reporting such benefits in a single monthly report, etc.) as regular employers.
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...
