Covid May Be Over – Its Legal Consequences Are Not

In its recent judgment[1], the Czech Constitutional Court once again took a clear stand against excessive formalism in cases concerning compensation for damage caused by Covid‑19 measures. The Court overturned decisions of all lower civil courts which had dismissed a business owner’s claim for lost profits solely on procedural grounds, without examining the substance of the case.

The claimant, a restaurant operator, sought compensation for losses incurred during the spring of 2021, when her business was forced to close under extraordinary public health measures. Those measures were later repeatedly annulled by administrative courts as unlawful. Despite this, the civil courts rejected the claim on the basis that the claimant had not formally challenged each individual measure at the time, and therefore did not meet the procedural conditions for state liability.

The Constitutional Court rejected this approach as incompatible with the right to a fair trial. It emphasised that the right to compensation for unlawful state action cannot be effectively denied through rigid procedural requirements applied without regard to context. In particular, courts must consider whether there were objective and reasonable reasons why the affected party did not pursue procedural remedies at the relevant time.

The Court noted that during the pandemic, extraordinary measures were adopted, amended and revoked in rapid succession, often before any meaningful judicial review could realistically take place. Requiring affected individuals to file numerous parallel legal actions in such circumstances may be detached from reality. Ignoring these factors and dismissing claims automatically constitutes impermissible formalism.

Crucially, the lower courts failed to address the claimant’s arguments that there were special circumstances justifying her procedural inactivity. Instead of assessing those arguments, they relied on a purely mechanical interpretation of procedural rules. This omission alone was sufficient for the Constitutional Court to find a violation of the right to judicial protection.

The judgment is of considerable practical importance. It confirms that the legal consequences of Covid‑19 measures remain very much alive and that claims against the state cannot be dismissed automatically on procedural grounds. Courts are required to assess each case individually, taking into account the extraordinary context in which the damage allegedly arose.

For businesses affected by pandemic‑related restrictions, the message is clear: even years after the end of the pandemic, claims for compensation may still deserve substantive judicial consideration rather than summary rejection.

[1] III. ÚS 2667/24 of 11 February 2026

By JUDr. Ondřej Rathouský

Download

Author