News from Czechia - April 2025 🐝

Contents of the March Updates 🐝

Public Defender of Rights 🗣️

• The Public Defender of Rights criticises the continued rejection of temporary protection applications. 

Legislative Changes 📄

• The so-called “flexi-amendment” to the Labour Code introduces extensive reforms in Czech employment law. 

Court Decisions ⚖️

Constitutional Court

• The Constitutional Court condemns failures by law enforcement authorities in the investigation of sexual violence.

Supreme Administrative Court

• Mobility within the EU for beneficiaries of temporary protection: the Supreme Administrative Court overturns the Ministry’s current practice. 

Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court strengthens privacy protection in criminal proceedings: the improper inclusion of sensitive personal data in the case file constitutes a violation of rights. 

Public Defender of Rights 🗣️

Public Defender of Rights Criticises the Continued Rejection of Temporary Protection Applications❗️🇺🇦

Keywords: temporary protection, CJEU, asylum law, Ukraine 

In a report dated 3 April 2025 (Ref. No. 585/2025/VOP), the Public Defender of Rights identified serious deficiencies in the practice of the Department of Asylum and Migration Policy of the Ministry of the Interior (OAMP). The deficiencies concern the repeated rejection of applications for temporary protection submitted by Ukrainian nationals who had previously waived such protection granted in another EU Member State before applying anew in the Czech Republic. Despite fulfilling the legal conditions, their applications were systematically deemed inadmissible under Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of Act No. 65/2022 Coll. ("Lex Ukraine"). This practice is incompatible with both the interpretation adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Krasiliva judgment and the evolving case law of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic, which favours a narrower and more applicant-friendly interpretation of the concept of inadmissibility. 

The Defender's report presents specific instances in which individuals validly renounced protection in another Member State and subsequently applied for it in the Czech Republic. Although their claims met the conditions of Directive 2001/55/EC and the relevant Council Implementing Decision, they were consistently denied access to rights associated with temporary protection—such as employment, social benefits, housing, and education. The Public Defender highlighted that this approach contradicts the principle of legal certainty, the CJEU's case law, and the purpose of the Directive itself, which guarantees equal access to protection across the European Union for those fleeing armed conflict. The Ministry must now respond to the findings within 30 days and take remedial action. [1]

Legislative Changes 📄

The “Flexi-Amendment” of the Labour Code Introduces Extensive Reforms in Czech Employment Law 💼

Keywords: Labour Code, flexi-amendment, employment law 

On 25 April 2025, President Petr Pavel signed into law a significant amendment to Act No. 262/2006 Coll., the Labour Code—commonly referred to as the “flexi-amendment”—which is set to take effect on 1 June 2025. The reform is intended to enhance the flexibility of the Czech labour market while also responding to the changing nature of work and the growing demand from employees for legal certainty. Among the most significant changes is the extension of the probationary period—up to four months for regular employees and eight months for managerial positions—as well as the new rule that the notice period begins on the date the notice is delivered, rather than at the beginning of the following calendar month. 

The amendment also introduces a mandatory obligation for employers to reinstate employees returning from parental leave to their original position, provided the child is under the age of two. Employees will be able, under certain conditions, to self-schedule shifts, receive wages in foreign currencies (for which the Czech National Bank publishes an exchange rate), or take up to four days of paid leave to seek new employment. Other provisions include an increase in unemployment benefits during the initial months of joblessness, the introduction of a special severance payment for employees leaving due to health reasons, the abolition of mandatory medical check-ups for non-risk professions, and enhanced wage transparency through a prohibition on contractual clauses requiring salary confidentiality. [2]

Court Decisions ⚖️

Constitutional Court

Constitutional Court Condemns Law Enforcement Failures in Investigating Allegations of Sexual Violence 💔

Keywords: criminal proceedings, law enforcement authorities, fair trial, secondary victimisation, sexual violence 

The judgment of the Constitutional Court (Ref. No. IV. ÚS 3248/24) constitutes a significant contribution to the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to effective investigation in cases involving sexual violence. In this case, the complainant reported being raped by her former partner. Law enforcement authorities discontinued the investigation, citing that the couple had previously engaged in consensual BDSM practices and thus interpreted the complainant’s explicit verbal and physical resistance as a form of role-play. The Constitutional Court found such a conclusion not only unsubstantiated but also in stark contradiction to the contents of the case file, which clearly indicated that simulated non-consensual scenarios were never part of the couple’s mutual agreement. 

The Court further criticised the authorities’ assessment of the complainant’s behaviour following the incident, particularly their failure to take into account established psychological knowledge about typical trauma responses of victims of sexual violence, including delayed or non-confrontational reactions. The reasoning of both the police and the prosecution relied on stereotypes about how a "proper victim" should behave and failed to consider the specific context and explanations provided by the complainant. The Court held that these deficiencies constituted a violation of the complainant’s constitutional right to an effective investigation and to personal dignity. The impugned decisions were annulled, and the public prosecutor’s office was instructed to rectify the identified constitutional shortcomings in the ensuing proceedings. This ruling reinforces the standards of victim protection in criminal proceedings and underscores the necessity of a sensitive, expert-informed, and constitutionally compliant approach by law enforcement authorities. [3] 

Supreme Administrative Court

Changing the Host Member State under Temporary Protection: Supreme Administrative Court Invalidates Prior Administrative Practice 👀❗️

Keywords: EU law, asylum law, Ukraine, Ministry of the Interior 

In its judgments of 3 April 2025 (Ref. Nos. 1 Azs 174/2024 and 1 Azs 336/2024), the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) explicitly rejected the existing administrative practice of the Czech Ministry of the Interior, which had returned applications for temporary protection lodged by Ukrainian nationals in the Czech Republic on the grounds that they had already been granted protection in another EU Member State. Although this practice was based on domestic law, the SAC held that it contravened EU law. 

In light of the preliminary reference submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-753/23, Krasiliva, the SAC clarified that beneficiaries of temporary protection may, during the period of such protection, change their host Member State—provided they relinquish their residence permit in the state of initial reception. This interpretation reaffirms that the concept of temporary protection under EU law is intended to be flexible and responsive to the specific circumstances of persons fleeing armed conflict. Member States cannot categorically refuse applications for relocation where the essential conditions under EU law are met. The SAC’s ruling thus has substantial implications for the legal status of many Ukrainians residing in the Czech Republic, as well as for the future design of administrative practice in the field of migration and international protection. [4]

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Affirms State Liability for Mishandling Sensitive Data in Criminal Proceedings ❤️‍🩹

Keywords: right to privacy, criminal proceedings, law enforcement authorities 

In its judgment (Ref. No. 30 Cdo 1849/2024), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of state liability for an unlawful act by a judicial authority in the context of criminal proceedings, particularly concerning the improper handling of sensitive personal data. During a house search, data storage devices belonging to the accused were seized. These devices contained not only communication with legal counsel but also private photographs, videos, and messages relating to the accused and his spouse. Despite the accused’s explicit warning, the court appended the entire content of these devices to the criminal case file and shared copies with the public prosecutor, co-defendants, and their defence counsel. 

While lower courts acknowledged the improper disclosure of the data, they dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims concerning broader harm resulting from the inclusion of sensitive information in the file. In contrast, the Supreme Court adopted a broader interpretation of the state’s duty to protect the right to privacy in criminal proceedings. It held that the court should have taken specific measures to prevent the inclusion of irrelevant and sensitive data in the case file. Furthermore, the Court confirmed that the state bears responsibility for the harm caused by this failure, and the scope of such harm must be assessed in light of the sensitivity of the data and the degree of interference with the plaintiffs’ privacy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court partially quashed the lower courts’ decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings. [5]

---

[1] Public Defender of Rights. Zpráva o šetření ve věci nepřijatelnosti žádostí o dočasnou ochranu, Ref. No. 585/2025/VOP [online]. 3 April 2025 [cit. 16 May 2025]. Available at: https://eso.ochrance.cz/Nalezene/Edit/13654

[2] ADVOKÁTNÍ DENÍK. Prezident Pavel podepsal šestici zákonů, mezi nimi i flexinovelu zákoníku práce [online]. 25 April 2025 [cit. 16 May 2025]. Available at: https://advokatnidenik.cz/2025/04/25/prezident-pavel-podepsal-sestici-zakonu-mezi-nimi-i-flexinovelu-zakoniku-prace/ 

[3] CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Law enforcement authorities failed to effectively investigate a reported rape; their conclusions were in extreme contradiction to the contents of the case file [online]. 9 April 2025 [cit. 16 May 2025]. Available at: https://www.usoud.cz/aktualne/organy-cinne-v-trestnim-rizeni-neprovedly-ucinne-vysetreni-stezovatelkou-nahlaseneho-znasilneni-jejich-zavery-jsou-navic-v-extremnim-rozporu-s-obsahem-spisu

[4] SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled on the possibility of Ukrainian nationals changing the Member State providing them with temporary protection [online]. 4 April 2025 [cit. 16 May 2025]. Available at: https://www.nssoud.cz/aktualne/tiskove-zpravy/detail/nejvyssi-spravni-soud-se-vyjadril-k-moznosti-obcanu-ukrajiny-zmenit-stat-poskytujici-jim-docasnou-ochranu 

[5] SUPREME COURT. Improper inclusion of sensitive data in the case file constitutes a violation of the right to privacy, Supreme Court rules [online]. 28 April 2025 [cit. 16 May 2025]. Available at: https://www.nsoud.cz/pro-verejnost-a-media/tiskove-zpravy/detail/nespravne-zalozeni-citlivych-dat-do-spisu-je-porusenim-prava-na-soukromi-rozhodl-nejvyssi-soud