We have addressed the issues surrounding Act No. 223/2016 Coll., on trading hours in retail and wholesale, as amended (hereinafter the “Act on Trading Hours”), in previous legal bulletins (No. 10/2016). The Supreme Administrative Court has now published another judgment in a series of court disputes between a major Czech internet trader (hereinafter the “trader”) and the Czech Trade Inspection Authority (hereinafter the “CTIA”), which addresses uncertainties associated with internet sales in relation to the restrictions imposed by this Act. This decision follows earlier judgments, including the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 12 July 2021, ref. no. 4 As 349/2020 – 63, which dealt with the same issues and which we reported on in detail in legal bulletin No. 10/2021.

At the outset, it is worth mentioning the facts of the case, which differ from the judgment already discussed only in a few facts. Here too, a situation arose where an inspector arrived at the trader’s branch (in this case, at a premises in Prague 7) on a public holiday (specifically 26 December 2018) for the purpose of purchasing a computer mouse. The inspector was informed by a member of staff at the premises that on a public holiday he could not purchase goods directly at the premises, but that he could order goods online via a computer located at the premises and then, after payment (in cash or by cashless means), collect his order. Following this incident, the trader was found guilty of committing an administrative offence by breaching the prohibition on sales, and was imposed a fine of CZK 500,000.

The essence of the entire matter, including previous decisions, is and has been the understanding and interpretation of the term “sale”, which is used in the Act on Trading Hours. In an effort to clarify the contradictory understanding of this term, the Supreme Administrative Court needed to determine how to interpret it in relation to the term “moment of conclusion of the contract of sale”. The trader disagreed with the interpretation of the CTIA, which argued that for the sales process to be fulfilled, it was sufficient merely to carry out one of the phases of the entire goods purchase process at a brick-and-mortar shop. However, the Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the trader’s view that the term sale should encompass the need to carry out all phases at a brick-and-mortar shop, not merely the handing over of goods (as was the case here).

Attention should also be paid to the trader’s argument, which correctly pointed out the situation that if the Act on Trading Hours were also applied to internet shops, it would not be possible to order any goods on a public holiday even through the virtual space of an e-shop. Although this option appears absurd, it is very difficult to reach any other conclusion from the literal wording of the Act on Trading Hours (internet sales are not listed among the exceptions to which the prohibition on sales does not apply).

In the judgments discussed, the Supreme Administrative Court thus expressed the same positions, only formulated differently. This was contributed to by the fact that the new judgment, as the Supreme Administrative Court itself stated, was based on its previous comprehensive decision.

In conclusion, it should be added that the new judgment has thus contributed to the expansion of established case law and could thereby simplify future decision-making by traders in this area. However, the very problematic wording of the Act on Trading Hours from the perspective of internet shops still persists.

Klára Širůčková and Josef Aujezdský

This text was originally prepared by the law firm Mašek, Kočí, Aujezdský in cooperation with the Association for Electronic Commerce (APEK) as legal bulletin No. 08/2022 intended for members of this association.

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