JŠK Legal Flash
An employer may prohibit an employee from performing certain work only expressly
The Supreme Court recently held that the activity of an employee who remains at the workplace and continues to work despite being instructed by the employer to go home constitutes execution of a work task and that the employer is liable for a work-related injury that the employee suffers during this activity. In this case, the employee did not follow the employer's instruction to "go home" and started preparing material for his work, even though this was the responsibility of another worker. The Supreme Court ruled that such an activity must be qualified as execution of a work task because the employer can instruct the employee not to execute certain work only expressly and any other means is insufficient.
(Judgment of the Supreme Court No. 21 Cdo 2034/2019 of 21 January 2020)
The Chamber of Deputies passed a bill known as Lex Covid. What measures have been prepared for corporations?
The impossibility of holding meetings of corporate bodies, especially supreme ones, was identified as the main problem during the preparation of the bill. The solution, according to Lex Covid, will be to allow decision-making by means of the use of appropriate technical facilities or correspondence voting (per rollam) even in cases where such decision-making is not allowed in the founding legal act, for the duration of the government measures. In addition, the offices of members of elected bodies will be automatically extended (if the members do not express their disagreement), and for capital companies and cooperatives the deadline for discussing the ordinary financial statements will be extended, in both cases by up to three months after the end of the government measures (for discussing the ordinary financial statements no later than 31 December 2020).
Providing short-term leases combined with ancillary services may be qualified as hospitality business
The Supreme Administrative Court recently held that short-term leases combined with ancillary services (e.g. cleaning, boat rental, providing bed sheets or wood) should be judged according to its subject-matter as concluding accommodation contracts, not lease contracts for an apartment or building that are intended to secure housing. As a consequence, this conclusion means that the providers of such leases must have a requisite trade licence and must duly designate leased real estate as business premises. This ruling may be relevant to the regulation of the so-called shared economy in the area of real estate (such as Airbnb).
(Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court No. 3 As 360/2017 of 14 January 2020)