The higher courts of the Czech Republic have repeatedly addressed legal questions connected with the time limit for handling complaints. On their part, this involved providing an interpretation of the provision of Section 19(3) of the Consumer Protection Act (Act No. 634/1992 Coll., as amended). For the purposes of this circular, it is possible to recall that the provision in question establishes the following obligations for the trader: “The seller or an employee authorised by him shall decide on the complaint immediately, in complicated cases within three working days. This period shall not include the time reasonable according to the type of product or service necessary for expert assessment of the defect. 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 shall have the same rights as if it were a defect that cannot be removed.” Non-compliance with the 30-day period is thus associated with a significant private law sanction for the trader; the consumer may withdraw from the purchase contract.

The subject of the courts’ decisions was specifically the question of whether the consumer must also be informed about the handling of the complaint within the stipulated thirty-day period or not. This issue follows on from another provision of the Consumer Protection Act, namely Section 19(1), which provides that: “…The seller is obliged to issue to the consumer written confirmation of when the consumer exercised the right, what the content of the complaint is and what method of handling the complaint the consumer requires; and further confirmation of the date and method of handling the complaint, including confirmation of the performance of the repair and its duration, or written reasoning for the rejection of the complaint…”

From the judgment of the Constitutional Court (III. ÚS 2983/08) it is possible to cite the following conclusions. The Constitutional Court was “of the opinion that the provision of Section 19 of Act No. 634/1992 Coll., in paragraph 1 of which the seller’s obligation to issue to the consumer confirmation of the date and method of handling the complaint, including confirmation of the performance of the repair and its duration, or written reasoning for the rejection of the complaint, is stipulated, must be interpreted in an extensive manner in favour of the consumer, with regard to the purpose of the Act, which is precisely the protection of the consumer as the ‘weaker party’ to the legal relationship established by the consumer contract, and thus infer that the obligation stipulated by law in this manner includes, or presupposes, also the provision of information about the handling of the complaint by the seller. Moreover, it is possible to refer also to the provision of Section 13 of the cited Act, in which the seller’s obligation to properly inform the consumer about the scope, conditions and method of exercising liability for defects in products and services is stipulated…, by extensive interpretation of which it would eventually be possible to infer that the seller is obliged, within the framework of the stated general information obligation, to at least alert the consumer to the fact that he must take an interest in the result of the handling of the complaint himself, with the proviso that if he does not do so, he must bear the consequences that arise for him from his inaction in this respect. If the seller does not provide such information to the consumer, the subsequent inaction of the consumer in such a case cannot be attributed to his detriment.”

The Supreme Court subsequently reached a similar conclusion in judgment 33 Cdo 3228/2009: “Having regard to… the meaning of the term ‘handle’ used, by logical interpretation of the given provision it is possible to reach the conclusion according to which, if the seller has accepted from the consumer who contacted him the thing for complaint, then the handling of the complaint occurs only at the moment when the seller notifies the consumer (whether in writing or in person) of the manner in which the complaint was handled (i.e. whether he was successful with the complaint or not). Only then can the complaint be considered handled – the seller will no longer have to deal with it. These conclusions are also in accordance with teleological interpretation, as the purpose of Act No. 634/1992 Coll. is the protection of the consumer as the weaker contracting party, which is based inter alia on the information obligation of the seller as the contracting party with a stronger position…” “It can be concluded that if the law stipulates a period of 30 days for handling the complaint from its being made, then the seller fulfils his obligation if within the statutory period (unless a longer period is agreed) he also notifies the consumer of the method of handling the complaint; thereby he prevents the arising of an irrebuttable legal presumption of the irremovability of the defect.”

The decision-making practice of the higher courts of the Czech Republic has thus unequivocally reached the conclusion that a complaint is considered handled only at the moment when the trader notifies the consumer of the method of handling the complaint.

Josef Aujezdský

Law Firm Mašek, Kočí, Aujezdský www.e-Advokacie.cz – on-line legal advice

This text was originally prepared by the law firm Mašek, Kočí, Aujezdský in cooperation with the civic association Association for Electronic Commerce (APEK) as legal circular No. 8/2012 intended for members of this association.

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