The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic in its finding Pl. ÚS 26/24[1] fundamentally changed the existing case law of the Supreme Court[2] concerning the protection of the reputation of legal entities under the “new” Civil Code.[3]

The Court ruled that even legal entities have the right to seek the same remedies in the event of an infringement of their reputation as would be available to them under the law on protection against unfair competition, including the right to adequate compensation.

There has been a long-standing disagreement among the professional community about the existence of a right to adequate compensation for injury to the reputation of a legal entity. However, the ruling of the Constitutional Court has closed this debate for good.

What options for protection did legal entities have before?

The Supreme Court has hitherto held that adequate compensation cannot be awarded if only the reputation of a legal entity is affected, because in such a case the law does not specifically provide for an obligation to compensate for non-pecuniary damage[4].

The general remedy for legal entities in the event of an infringement of their reputation was Section 135 of the Civil Code, which, however, only allowed them to claim:

• refraining from interference (e.g. prohibiting the continued dissemination of false claims),
• removing the consequences of the intervention (e.g. deleting an article),

• compensation for damage to property,
• and release of unjust enrichment.

In practice, however, it has been possible to obtain adequate compensation under certain conditions, in particular where the interference with reputation met the characteristics of unfair competition. According to the Constitutional Court, however, this method of protecting the reputation of legal entities was not sufficiently effective, as it did not cover all cases of interference with their reputation.[5]

Reasons for the decision of the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court interpreted that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms[6] also grants legal entities the right to protection of their reputation. At the same time, the Court concluded that the current legal regulation does not provide legal entities with sufficiently effective means of protecting this right.

What is the significance of granting adequate compensation?

Non-monetary adequate compensation may take the following forms:

1. Private apology
2. Publication of an apology – e.g. in the media or in other ways appropriate to the nature of the intervention.

If non-monetary form of compensation is not sufficient to compensate for the damage, the court may also grant monetary compensation.

In any event, the compensation must be proportionate to all the circumstances of the case (the intensity of the injury to the victim’s reputation, the fault and motivation of the wrongdoer, the duration of the infringement, etc.).

It can be expected that in the case of damage to the reputation of a legal entity, a public apology will often be of greater importance to the victim than hard-to-obtain compensation or a mere removal of an article.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court confirmed that legal entities have a constitutionally guaranteed right to protection of their reputation. In the case of damage to the reputation of a legal entity, too, legal entities may claim appropriate compensation (e.g. an apology).

Please note that this interpretation of the Constitutional Court is binding and applies to all proceedings already initiated.

[1] Finding Pl. ÚS 26/24 of 15 January 2025, available HERE

[2] In particular the Supreme Court judgment of 30 November 2021, Case No. 23 Cdo 327/2021, available here

[3] of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code, as amended

[4] Section 2894(2) of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code, as amended

[5] Paragraph 72 of Pl. ÚS 26/24 of 15 January 2025

[6] Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, as amended