Companies are not entitled to monetary compensation for defamation, ie recognition of so-called non-pecuniary damage, the Supreme Court has ruled. The court published the verdict last year in mid-December, the daily Hospodářské noviny (HN) wrote today. According to the lawyers, the new interpretation is completely at odds with how the courts have dealt with damaging the reputation of companies so far, the website writes. The Senate, led by President Pavel Horák, argued that the new Civil Code, in force since 2014, does not explicitly name this right.
“The obligation to protect this right does not result from ratified and promulgated international treaties by which the Czech Republic is bound, nor from EU law,” Horák’s Senate stated in a resolution available on the Supreme Court’s website. It concerns a dispute between a Prague company that felt damaged by critical articles in the conservation association about the impact of its work on the environment. And he explained the mentioned “gap” in the Civil Code in such a way that a legal person is not entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
According to the server, the interpretation will have a wide impact on practice, as the opinion of the Supreme Court must be respected by all subordinate courts in other cases. And similar cases where injured companies have received large sums of compensation for non-pecuniary damage have been common so far. “If the current decision of the Supreme Court passes the test at the Constitutional Court without change, all court decisions that can still be revised will fall into domino effect,” HN lawyer František Vyskočil, who specializes in non-pecuniary damage, told HN. Lawyers believe that companies will try to obtain compensation by filing criminal reports.
The daily reminds that paradoxically, two weeks ago, ie after the publication of the said decision, the Municipal Court in Prague awarded a quarter of a million compensation to the nursing home in Měšice near Prague. Activist Jana Peterková has to pay him for the false claim that several seniors died while being vaccinated at home. The court automatically granted the lawsuit because Peter ignored the summons and did not come to the trial. It is precisely the judgment rendered for so-called default that is difficult to reverse. The defendant must prove that he did not fail to act. Even so, according to lawyers, Peterková has a chance that she will miss the obligation to pay compensation. According to Vyskočil, he can argue with the above-mentioned opinion of the Supreme Court, which the court of appeal should take into account and cancel the obligation to pay damages.
Source: Hospodářské noviny and CTK
