Case law

Supreme Court on proving damages under the CMR

Ruling of the Supreme Court in case No. 23 Cdo 1628/2020 of 31.8.2021

The Supreme Court, it should be noted that after a really detailed consideration of the conclusions of Czech and foreign case law and doctrine, decided to deal with the issue of proving the amount of compensation for damages under Article 25 CMR and determining the normal price of the shipment. In practice, it often happens that the documents proving the value of the consignment at the time and place of acceptance for carriage reflect the value of the consignment more or less faithfully, taking into account the effect of various influences (subsidies, other items included in the price – insurance, packaging, etc.). In that regard, the Supreme Court has held that the normal market price is the price resulting from the operation of normal market mechanisms and that, where there is an agreement between two parties on a certain purchase price, such a price may in principle be considered to be the normal market price within the meaning of Article 25 of the CMR Convention. However, it is clear from the ruling that the applicant (the injured party) can prove that the normal market price was higher for the goods in question, but the burden of proof is on him.

The Supreme Administrative Court on the method of proving the circumstances of the transport for the purposes of VAT deduction

Ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court No 117/2021-50 of 14.12.2021

The Court pointed out in general terms that, in the case of a VAT deduction on the supply of goods to another State, the tax proceedings are primarily concerned with whether the goods were actually supplied to the other State. On the other hand, the proceedings are not concerned with transport services and the taxable person cannot therefore be required to produce only impeccable written documents relating to the transport of the goods in order to prove the facts alleged by him. The taxable person may also use other evidence to help him paint a picture of the substance. Although the primary issue in the case of a tax-deductible expense is documentary evidence, this does not prevent the taxpayer from adducing other evidence relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings. Such other evidence cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the formal transport documents are deficient.

Supreme Court: On the determination of compensation for the mental anguish of a close relative in the event of personal injury caused by another close relative

Ruling of the Supreme Court in Case No. 25 Cdo 2515/2021 of 27.10.2021

The case concerned a traffic accident in which a one-year-old child sustained injuries with permanent consequences, the culprit being the child’s father, who was driving. Some of the relatives sought compensation for mental anguish related to the injury to the health of a loved one directly from the insurance company. The Supreme Court held that the fact that the personal injury was caused to the primary victim by another person close to the victim cannot lead to the conclusion that the person close to the victim seeking compensation should have borne his or her fate better and that the amount of compensation should be reduced for that reason alone. If the injured party continues to care for family members (including the other parent, who suffers hardship as a result of the injury to the common child) and for the injured child in the usual way after the event, this cannot be regarded as compensation for the injury suffered by the injured party, but as the exercise of his duty of maintenance.

We have also written 

Delivery of goods and their acceptance by the consignee in international rail transport – This article discusses some of the pitfalls associated with the timing of the acceptance of goods by the consignee, and the associated loss or exposure to liability claims. Read more in Law in Transport and Forwarding, No. 4/2021, p. 2, available here (English only).