In this circular, we will briefly address a very practical question, namely the determination of the commencement of the period for the trader (seller) to process a complaint, including the removal of the complained defect. There is no doubt in practice regarding the actual length of this period, as Section 19(3) of Act No. 634/1992 Coll., on Consumer Protection, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the “Consumer Protection Act”), stipulates that a complaint must be processed without undue delay, but no later than within 30 days from the date of making the complaint, unless the seller agrees with the consumer on a longer period.

This period begins to run on the day following the fact decisive for its commencement, i.e. the day after the proper making of the complaint, and ends upon the expiry of 30 days (unless a longer period has been agreed). If the last day of the period falls on a weekend or public holiday, the last day of the period shall be the nearest working day. And it is precisely the determination of the commencement of the running of this period, on which logically also depends the determination of its end and the possible consequences arising from its non-compliance, that is somewhat problematic in practice. For the question arises: when is a complaint actually properly made with the seller?

The provisions of Sections 1921(1), (2) and 1922(1) of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Code”), establish the buyer’s obligation to notify the seller without undue delay of the discovery of a defect, to point out the defect (by identifying the defect or notifying how it manifests itself), and to hand over the subject of performance (goods) to the seller, or, according to his instructions, to store it or deal with it appropriately so that the defect can be examined.

However, just as the Consumer Protection Act, these provisions do not stipulate at which moment a complaint is properly made and when, therefore, the seller’s period for processing the complaint begins to run. Specifically, whether notification and pointing out of the defect is sufficient, or whether delivery of the goods or its storage or appropriate dealing with it is also necessary, as stated above. This may be problematic particularly in cases where there is a more significant time delay between these two moments. It is logical that the seller cannot deal with the complaint fully when he does not have the possibility to directly assess the defect in the goods; on the other hand, this delay may be driven on the part of the consumer, for example, by an effort not to unnecessarily increase the costs of the complaint, which are borne by the seller.

In our opinion, out of caution and with regard to the principle of protection of the weaker party in the Civil Code and consumer protection, which is the aim of the Consumer Protection Act, we would incline towards the first variant, i.e. that proper making of a complaint occurs rather already upon notification and pointing out of the defect by the buyer (consumer). We therefore recommend increased caution to traders in this respect, as non-compliance with the period for processing a complaint is considered a material breach of contract together with all the consequences arising therefrom (the possibility of withdrawal from the contract without undue delay on the part of the buyer). Having regard to Section 19(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, it would, however, be possible, for example, within the terms and conditions, to agree on this period being longer than the primarily stipulated thirty-day statutory period.

In conclusion, we would like to emphasise the difference between the terms “period for processing a complaint” and “complaint period”. In the first case, it concerns the period within which the seller must process the complaint and remove the complained defect, whereas the complaint period, within the meaning of Section 1921(2) of the Civil Code, means the period for making a complaint on the part of the customer (buyer).

Barbora Chvalinová

Law Office Mašek, Kočí, Aujezdský www.e-Advokacie.cz – online legal advice

This text was originally prepared by the law office Mašek, Kočí, Aujezdský in cooperation with the Association for Electronic Commerce (APEK) as legal circular No. 9/2014 intended for members of this association.

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