News in legislation
New law on general product safety
On 20 November 2024, the Senate of the Czech Republic approved a draft new law on general product safety (the “new law“), which implements Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council on general product safety (the “Regulation“). The aim of the implemented Regulation, and therefore also of the new law, is primarily to improve consumer protection and modernize the early warning system. The first objective should be achieved both by strengthening the surveillance of dangerous products and by increasing the safety of products on the market. In particular, the introduction of the Safety Gate system for the rapid notification of risky products should help to modernize the early warning system.
In order to achieve its objective, the new law defines the institutional set-up for product safety surveillance, designates a central liaison office for general product safety, or the aforementioned national network of the Safety Gate early warning system, and a national focal point to ensure the operation of Safety Gate. The new law also specifies the powers and content of decisions of supervisory authorities in case of a breach of the Regulation by online marketplace providers.
Among the new obligations that the new law will bring are:
- obligation to carry out an internal risk analysis before placing a product on the market;
- the obligation to draw up technical documentation for each product;
- the obligation to establish an internal complaints register;
- obligation to establish internal procedures to ensure product safety;
- obligation to provide instructions for the product (where necessary to ensure safe use of the product) in the official language(s) of the country where the product is placed on the market;
- obligation to establish an internal register containing complaints about the safety of products placed on the market by individual operators, information on accidents caused by products, cases of product recalls and corrective measures taken;
- obligation to investigate complaints about product safety and information on accidents.
Compared to the current law on general product safety, economic operators “remain” obliged to inform the competent supervisory authorities about unsafe or suspected unsafe products they have placed on the market. This obligation will be fulfilled by economic operators through the Safety Business Gateway.
There will also continue to be an obligation to inform consumers in the event of a notification of a recall of a dangerous product. However, the scope and method of notification will be harmonized and, as long as the requirements of the Regulation are met, the economic operator will be assured of compliance with the legal requirements.
The labelling requirements will also be clarified in order to ensure the traceability of products and the traceability of the responsible persons who place products on the market or in circulation. However, the extent of the obligations related to product labelling will depend on the position of the operator in the supply chain, with most obligations being addressed to manufacturers.
In addition, the new law contains a list of offences that economic operators and online marketplace providers may commit in case of breach of the Regulation, and also sets out the penalties for these offences.
The new law also amends certain legal provisions, namely Act No. 634/1992 Coll., on consumer protection, Act No. 19/1993 Coll., on the bodies of the state administration of the Czech Republic in the field of hallmarking and testing of precious metals, Act No. 87/2023 Coll., on market surveillance of products.
Case law
E-mail as a means of service: the Supreme Court confirms the validity of electronic service
(Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic Case No. 27 Cdo 3499/2023-196 of 6 August 2024)
The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic in its decision No. 27 Cdo 3499/2023-196 of 6 August 2024 dealt with the issue of service of legal proceedings by e-mail.
In the present case, the plaintiff, the former chairman of the board of directors of the defendant company, argued that he could not have been served with the notice of his non-election for a further term of office, which was saved in his work e-mail box on 29 October 2021, since he was on leave between 29 October 2021 and 5 November 2021 and was therefore not obliged to actively access his work e-mail box or to perform his duties as chairman of the board of directors. The applicant therefore sought reimbursement of part of his remuneration, namely in the amount of CZK 1 264 000.
However, both the lower courts and the Supreme Court held that, since the notice was served on the appellant via his work e-mail account, which he used on a regular basis, and since the deposit of the e-mail containing the notice in the appellant’s e-mail account is not disputed between the parties, it is clear that the notice was already in the appellant’s possession on 29 October 2021 and that he could have seen it simply by opening his e-mail account.
The Supreme Court also agrees with the conclusions of the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance that ‘taking leave’ does not constitute an objective obstacle in the present case which prevented the applicant from acquainting himself with the content of the notice. In that connection, the Supreme Court pointed out that a person who is called to serve as a member of a company’s body is a member of the body for the entire period from the creation of his office until its termination, so to speak, ’24 hours a day, 7 days a week’.
Despite the fact that the Supreme Court pointed out in its decision both that the choice of the method of service by e-mail communication entails many disadvantages, since its quality is not regulated by law, and that it is then up to the sender, to bear the consequences of any defects in service by that method, concludes that, where it is undisputed that the e-mail message was deposited in the addressee’s e-mail box, which is normally used by the addressee, it can be concluded – in the absence of objective obstacles to service – that the mail has been placed at the addressee’s disposal.
Unbundling of the employment relationship: The Supreme Court examined the intensity of psychological pressure in concluding agreements
(Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic Case No. 21 Cdo 992/2023 of 29 August 2024)
The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic has also dealt with the invalidity of agreements on termination of employment in its recent practice, specifically in its judgment of 29 August 2024, Case No. 21 Cdo 992/2023.
In that case, the two applicants, who as actresses were employees of a theatre, brought an action for a declaration that the agreements on termination of employment which they had signed in March 2021 with their employer, the theatre, were invalid. The applicants claimed that their employer had forced them to sign the termination agreements under pressure and duress, which had impaired their free will. According to their statements, the employer told them, quite unexpectedly, i.e. during the so-called artistic interviews, that they were redundant and offered them immediate termination agreements. As the applicants refused to sign the agreements, their employer threatened them with termination of their employment and the loss of the opportunity to play their roles in the theatre under the license agreement.
In 2022, the district court ruled that the termination agreements were invalid and found that the employer had acted in breach of good morals
Like the trial court, it concluded that the plaintiffs were subjected to psychological pressure that led to their distress and impaired their free will in entering into the agreements.
This decision was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court, which, although it did not find that the agreement in question was void for breach of good morals, emphasized that the psychological pressure had reached such an intensity that it excluded the applicants’ free will in concluding the agreement and therefore led to the invalidity of the agreements. In that connection, the Court of Appeal emphasized that:
“The employment of actors is chosen by persons who primarily wish to pursue their artistic interests, which are often their life’s work and their life’s interest. The loss of a job thus usually entails, in addition to the loss of income, another consequence, which is obviously far more serious for the applicants, in the form of the loss of the opportunity to pursue their artistic activity. Those facts put more pressure on the applicants’ persons than would have been the case in a negotiated termination of the normal employment relationship.“
However, in 2024, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, despite confirming that an employer’s conduct in making a termination agreement conditional on the possibility of further collaboration through licensing agreements could be considered an unlawful threat. However, it concluded that, in the present case, the psychological pressure exerted was not sufficiently intense to interfere with the applicants’ free will. In doing so, the Supreme Court argued that:
“Although the personal characteristics of the person who was threatened must also be taken into account, one cannot agree with the Court of Appeal’s approach that the specific characteristics of the acting profession played such a role in the present case. The fact that the artistic realization under the promised licensing agreement (and, on the other hand, the loss of that realization) would be limited must have been obvious to both applicants (if only because of the presentation of the roster of roles). The threatened danger in the present case was therefore not so intense as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension on the part of the applicants, without which they would not have concluded the termination agreement“.
In the Supreme Court’s view, therefore, the conclusion that the applicants were forced to take legal action by the threat of mental violence was not justified and the ground on which the two applicants sought a declaration that the termination agreements were invalid was not present.
On the basis of these findings, the Supreme Court held that the termination agreements were valid and dismissed the actions.
For more information:
Banking, Finance & Insurance:
Daniel Weinhold, Václav Štraser, Ondřej Tejnský
Competition Law / EU Law:
Tomáš Čermák
Dispute Resolution:
Milan Polák, Zbyšek Kordač, Anna Bartůňková, Michaela Koblasová, Michal Švec
ESG – Environment, Social, (corporate) Governance:
Daniel Weinhold, Tereza Hošková
Family Office:
Milan Polák, Zbyšek Kordač, Michaela Koblasová
Insolvency and Restructuring:
Zbyšek Kordač, Jakub Nedoma
IT, Media & Telecommunication:
Martin Lukáš, Jakub Nedoma, Michal Przeczek
Labour Law:
Eva Procházková, Anna Bartůňková, Daša Aradská, Ondřej Tejnský
Mergers and Acquisitions:
Daniel Weinhold, Václav Štraser
Personal Data Protection:
Martin Lukáš, Tereza Hošková, Daša Aradská
Public Procurement & Public Sector:
Martin Lukáš, Tereza Hošková, Monika Švaříčková
Real Estate:
Pav Younis, Václav Štraser
Regulatory and Government Affairs:
Daniel Weinhold
Start-ups, Venture Capital and Cryptocurrency:
Pav Younis, Martin Lukáš, Jakub Nedoma, Michal Švec, Ondřej Tejnský