Within the framework of this circular, we shall address the issue of certain basic obligations which generally binding legal regulations impose on the seller during the course of complaints procedure. As is known, the seller’s obligations in handling complaints are established in particular by the provisions of Sections 13 and 19 of Act No. 634/1992 Coll., on Consumer Protection, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the “Consumer Protection Act”). We addressed in detail the issue of fulfilment of information obligations pursuant to Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act in previous legal circulars.

First and foremost, the seller is obliged to properly inform the consumer about the conditions, scope and manner of making a complaint. The seller may fulfil this information obligation in any form, for example by stating it in the terms and conditions or in the complaints procedure. In this connection, however, it must be pointed out that such a complaints procedure is as a rule a unilateral legal act of the seller and may thus not be binding on the consumer.

In connection with the issue of complaints procedures, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court in case No. 3 As 60/2005. A provision of the complaints procedure in which the seller untruthfully informed the consumer of the obligation to pay costs for the assessment of defects complained of in the case of an unfounded complaint was found to constitute a breach of the seller’s information obligation imposed by Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, when the imposition of such an obligation on the consumer has no basis in law. The Civil Code, which regulates the actual regime of liability for defects, nowhere establishes an obligation of the buyer to bear the costs of assessment of a defect. The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that such a provision of the complaints procedure is invalid for conflict with Section 55(1) of the Civil Code, according to which “contractual terms of consumer contracts may not deviate from the law to the detriment of the consumer”. Beyond the law, therefore, only more favourable conditions for making complaints for defects may be provided to the consumer; in no case, however, is it possible, in the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court, to limit the consumer’s rights in asserting liability for defects, not even with his consent.

With the exception of cases where the warranty certificate specifies another trader designated for repairs who is located at the seller’s place or at a place closer for the buyer, rights arising from liability for defects are asserted with the seller from whom the thing was purchased. The seller is obliged to accept a complaint at any establishment in which acceptance of the complaint is possible having regard to the range of goods sold, or also at the registered office or place of business. The seller is obliged to issue to the consumer written confirmation of when the consumer asserted the right, what the content of the complaint is and what manner of handling the complaint the consumer requires. Furthermore, the law establishes the seller’s obligation to issue to the consumer confirmation of the date and manner of handling the complaint, including confirmation of the performance of repair and the duration thereof. If the seller rejects the complaint, he is obliged to provide the consumer with written reasons for the rejection. The law further imposes on the seller the obligation to decide on the complaint immediately, in complicated cases within three working days. The complaint, including the removal of the defect, must be handled without undue delay, at the latest within 30 days from the date of making the complaint, unless the seller agrees with the consumer on a longer period. After the expiry of this period, the consumer has the same rights as if it concerned a defect which cannot be removed, thus also the right to withdraw from the contract.

The question of whether the seller is obliged to inform the consumer of how the complaint was handled, or whether it is the consumer’s obligation to inform himself about the handling of the complaint, is not expressly regulated by law. Uncertainties in this question were not removed until the finding of the Constitutional Court of 10 November 2009, case No. III. ÚS 2983/08, which took an unequivocal position on this question. According to the Constitutional Court, the seller’s obligation to issue to the consumer confirmation of the date and manner of handling the complaint, including confirmation of the performance of repair and the duration thereof, or written reasons for rejection of the complaint, must be interpreted in an extensive manner in favour of the consumer, having regard to the purpose of the law, which is precisely the protection of the consumer as the “weaker party” to the legal relationship established by a consumer contract, and thus to conclude that the obligation established by law in this manner includes, or presupposes, also the provision of information about the handling of the complaint by the seller.

For the sake of completeness, let us add that supervision over compliance with the above-mentioned seller’s obligations established by the Consumer Protection Act is exercised by the Czech Trade Inspection Authority.

This text was translated from Czech to English using an AI translator.