JŠK Legal Flash
Guarantor not entitled to set-off the primary obligor's claim against the beneficiary
In re SELECTA, the Czech Supreme Court held that under the new Czech Civil Code, a guarantor may not invoke a defence vis-à-vis the beneficiary of the guarantee by setting off a claim which the primary obligor holds against the beneficiary. The Supreme Court sided with those commentators who have interpreted the law as the new Civil Code introducing a substantive change on this point as against the previous position in the now-repealed Commercial Code, although the legislative report to the Civil Code did not herald any such intent.
Supreme Court judgment case no. 23 Cdo 2475/2019 of 19 May 2021
New obligation for website operators – verification of content uploaded by users
Do you operate a website where users can upload data files such as documents or photos? Then you should take note. The Supreme Court has recently tightened up the interpretation of the liability of file-hosting providers by ruling that a business model based on the remuneration of potential copyright infringers is inherently illegal.
In the case at hand, the Court defended musicians, publishers and authors who are losing their income due to illegal uploading and downloading of copyrighted works on the internet. Website operators, who previously relied on their passive role in relation to the activities of internet users, will now in many cases have to check that uploaded files do not infringe copyright. We will monitor whether this strict interpretation will be maintained by the forthcoming amendment to the Copyright Act.
Supreme Court confirmed protection of employees against discrimination even in the event of termination during probationary period
In accordance with the Labour Code, an employer may terminate an employee during the probationary period for any reason or without stating a reason. In its recent decisions, the Supreme Court has confirmed that if an employer terminates an employee during the probationary period without giving a reason, this does not in itself preclude discriminatory termination. If the reason for the termination lies, for example, in the employee's pregnancy or in the employee's loss of medical capacity, this constitutes inadmissible discrimination, which results in both the invalidity of the termination and the possibility for the employee to seek protection against discrimination (i.e. among other things, reasonable satisfaction). It makes no difference if the reason for the termination was not explicitly stated in the written termination notice or if another reason inconsistent with the facts was stated in such notice.
(Decision of the Supreme Court of 16 March 2021 file 21 Cdo 2410/2020 and Decision of the Supreme Court of 8 April 2021 file 21 Cdo 504/2021)