The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic (hereinafter the “SC”) has previously concluded in its decision-making practice that the mere fact that a witness is in the position of an employee of one of the parties to the proceedings does not in itself justify the conclusion that the testimony of such a person is unreliable. In other words, the testimony of an employee of a party to the proceedings is no less valid than that of any other witness.

In a recent decision, the SC considered a situation where the witness was an employee of a representative of a party. In the present case, the dispute was between the employee, on the one hand, and the statutory director of the employer and the employer as a company itself, on the other. By the action filed, the plaintiff requested that both defendants pay him tens of thousands of crowns jointly and severally by way of compensation for damages and compensation for loss of earnings.

The employee (“the plaintiff”) justified his claim for damages on the basis that he was a former employee of the defendant employer and on the basis that he had been physically assaulted by the employer’s statutory director during a “work meeting”, during which an attempt was to be made to deliver employment documents concerning termination of the claimant’s employment. During this incident, the plaintiff was then alleged to have sustained injuries in the form of contusions to his shoulder and arm, as well as cervical spine injuries.

An employee of the plaintiff’s counsel was present at entire “work meeting”, and it was her testimony that played a significant role in the subsequent court proceedings for the damages in question. The plaintiff appealed against the decision of the court of first instance on the ground that he had not been awarded compensation for the damage he had suffered because, according to the court of first instance, it was not possible to prove on the basis of the evidence adduced whether the incident described had actually occurred.

The appellate court did not agree with the plaintiff either, because, same as the Court of First Instance, it referred to facts which, according to the opinions of both courts, would to some extent reduce the credibility of the testimony of the employee of the plaintiff’s (employee’s) attorney. These facts allegedly consisted precisely in the employment relationship of the witness to the plaintiff’s counsel and also in the contradiction of her testimony to that of another witness.

The plaintiff disagreed with the verdict of the appellate court and therefore decided to appeal. With regard to the fact that the Supreme Court has not yet in its decision-making practice addressed the question if the conclusion on the unreliability of a witness’s testimony can be based on the fact that this person is in an employment relationship with a party’s representative, the Supreme Court assessed the plaintiff’s appeal as admissible.

In its decision, the SC referred to its previous decision, which dealt with a similar situation where the credibility of a witness testimony of an employee of a party to the proceedings was questioned. Thus, in the past, as well as now, the SC concluded that the mere fact that the testifying witness is otherwise in an employment relationship with one of the parties to the proceedings does not in itself justify the conclusion that the testimony of that person would be false.

The Supreme Court then applied a similar conclusion to the above-described case, where the testimony of an employee of the party’s representative was involved, since even in this case there is no reason to question the credibility of the testimony of a witness solely on the basis of the employment relationship between the witness and the party’s representative.

In addition, the Supreme Court also pointed to the principle of free evaluation of evidence, due to which the “weight” of individual pieces of evidence is not predetermined and thus leaves room for the court’s discretion in their evaluation.

Again, the previous decision-making practice of the Supreme Court regarding employee testimonies was confirmed or rather slightly expanded.

In conclusion, it can thus be generally summarised that it is not possible to question the testimony of a witness, whether an employee of a party to the proceedings or its representative, solely on the basis of the existence of a mutual employment relationship.

Author: Veronika Odrobinová, Jessica Vaculíková