Brazilian companies doing business with Czech partners Contractual pitfalls to watch

Mgr. Vojtěch Sucharda
Mgr. Vojtěch Sucharda
1.4.2026 | ARROWS law firm

Brazilian companies expanding into Central Europe often discover that the Czech Republic's legal framework operates very differently from what they know at home. This article reveals the critical contractual mistakes that Brazilian firms regularly make when negotiating with Czech business partners—and more importantly, how to avoid them. You will find specific, actionable guidance on the legal pitfalls that can transform a seemingly straightforward business deal into a financial and legal nightmare.

Picture illustrates a legal expert consulting about cross-border contract negotiation.

When a Brazilian company signs a contract in the Czech Republic, they are not simply exchanging signatures on a formal document. They are entering into a legally binding framework where every word, every clause, and every omission carries consequences that might surprise someone trained in Brazilian commercial law.

The difference between how contracts are interpreted in Brazil and in the Czech Republic is not merely a matter of different wording—it reflects fundamentally different philosophies about what a contract actually is.

In Brazil, contracts operate within a flexible framework governed by principles of good faith and fairness. Brazilian law recognizes that business relationships evolve, that parties may not foresee all circumstances, and that courts have discretion to interpret contracts reasonably.

A verbal agreement, combined with subsequent conduct, can create binding obligations. A contract that seems incomplete can still be enforceable if the parties' intentions are clear. This flexibility is a feature, not a flaw—it reflects the reality that real commercial relationships are dynamic.

Czech contract law operates in an entirely different universe, creating a system where written contracts serve as the primary legal reality.

What is not written in the contract, with few exceptions, simply does not exist as an enforceable obligation. Czech courts interpret contracts according to strict rules: they look first to the common intention of the parties. If that is unclear, they apply objective rules about how a "reasonable person" would understand the language used.

Ambiguities in standard form contracts are interpreted against the party that drafted them ( contra proferentem ). The principle of good faith exists in Czech law, but it functions differently than in Brazil. It is not a general excuse for renegotiating unfavorable terms or adjusting contracts when circumstances change.

This difference creates what legal professionals call a "validity trap" for Brazilian companies.

A Brazilian executive, accustomed to negotiating deals where substantial terms can be discussed verbally and formalized later, may leave a negotiation feeling confident in what has been agreed. They return to São Paulo believing that a binding commercial relationship has been established, even though nothing has been formally documented in writing.

In Prague, the Czech partner may see things entirely differently. Under Czech law, for certain types of agreements—particularly commercial agency contracts—no binding contract exists until it is properly executed in writing.

The confidence you felt walking out of the negotiation may evaporate the moment a legal dispute arises, and you discover that from the Czech perspective, you have no enforceable rights at all.

ARROWS Law Firm has spent over a decade representing Brazilian and other foreign companies operating in the Czech Republic and throughout Central Europe. The solicitors at ARROWS Law Firm regularly encounter this exact scenario: Brazilian firms arriving in Prague with expectations shaped by their home legal system.

The firm's experience in handling cross-border disputes between Brazilian and Czech partners has revealed that most conflicts stem not from bad faith or dishonesty, but from this fundamental misunderstanding about how Czech law treats contracts.

The good news is that these mistakes are preventable with proper guidance. The bad news is that understanding all the pitfalls requires navigating a complex web of statutory requirements, court interpretations, and practical procedures that have few equivalents in Brazilian law.

Mistake #1: Underestimating the smluvní pokuta

The most financially dangerous mistake a Brazilian company can make when signing a Czech contract is overlooking or minimizing a clause containing a "smluvní pokuta"—a contractual penalty. This legal instrument (governed by Sections 2048–2052 of the Czech Civil Code) has no direct equivalent in Brazilian law regarding its strictness.

In Brazil, penalty clauses ( multas contratuais ) are subject to moderation by courts if they are found to be excessive or disproportionate to the actual damage caused.

A Brazilian company signing a contract with a penalty clause understands that if a dispute arises, a judge can reduce the penalty amount based on what seems fair. This creates a sense that penalty clauses, while serious, are subject to reasonableness checks. You might think of them as a negotiated estimate of damages that a court can adjust if circumstances warrant.

Czech law takes a radically different approach. The smluvní pokuta is a fully enforceable financial sanction that operates independently of actual damages. Here is what makes this so dangerous: the penalty can be applied to any breach of contract, including purely monetary ones like late payment.

If your Brazilian subsidiary is ten days late in payment due to an administrative processing error, you owe a penalty equal to the agreed percentage of the entire contract value.

The purpose of the smluvní pokuta is not just compensation; it is prevention and punishment. A Brazilian manager reading such a clause might think this is obviously unenforceable as a penalty rather than a genuine damages estimate, but Czech courts enforce these penalties routinely.

While Czech law does allow courts to moderate an "unreasonably high" penalty (Section 2051 of the Civil Code), this requires filing a lawsuit and proving in court that the amount is grossly disproportionate. You cannot simply refuse to pay and hope for the best.

The burden is on you to challenge the penalty in court, and courts are generally reluctant to interfere with parties' freely negotiated terms in B2B relationships.

Consider a practical scenario: a Brazilian manufacturing company enters into a supply agreement with a Czech distributor. The contract contains a smluvní pokuta clause that the Brazilian team's legal department barely noticed. The clause states that if the Brazilian supplier fails to deliver goods within five days of the agreed delivery date, a penalty applies.

Eighteen months into the relationship, a logistics delay causes a shipment to arrive eight days late. The Czech distributor immediately sends an invoice claiming a significant penalty. The Brazilian company contests the charge, believing it is clearly unreasonable.

Months later, a Czech court upholds the full penalty, and the Brazilian company must pay the penalty, plus court costs and legal fees.

This scenario occurs regularly enough that experienced practitioners in Prague have stopped being surprised by it. ARROWS Law Firm's lawyers encounter this situation multiple times each year, representing Brazilian companies who believed they were making reasonable commercial arrangements.

The problem is compounded by the interaction between the smluvní pokuta and actual damages. Under Section 2050 of the Czech Civil Code, the default rule is that payment of a contractual penalty replaces the right to claim damages. However, almost every professionally drafted Czech commercial contract overrides this default.

If you miss this clause, you may be liable for both the fixed penalty and the full amount of any financial loss the Czech partner suffered.

Conversely, a creditor does not need to prove they suffered any damage at all to collect the penalty—the mere fact of the breach is sufficient. What makes this even more complex in practice is that Czech law allows creditors to claim contractual penalties even after a debt has become time-barred.

How to identify and negotiate penalty clauses

When reviewing a Czech contract, you must give careful attention to any mention of penalties, sanctions, or financial consequences for non-performance. Look not just for explicit penalty clauses but for language that describes what happens if you miss a deadline or fail to perform.

Brazilian companies often make the mistake of assuming that penalty clauses in Czech contracts will be interpreted generously or that courts will refuse to enforce them if they seem harsh.

This assumption is incorrect. Czech courts enforce negotiated penalty clauses as written. Your best protection is therefore negotiation at the outset, before you sign. If you are negotiating a contract with a Czech partner and encounter a penalty clause, you have several options.

First, you can propose that the penalty be modified to apply only to material breaches. Second, you can propose caps on the total penalty liability (e.g., capped at 10% of the contract price). Third, you can exclude certain types of delays or breaches from the penalty (for example, delays caused by force majeure).

None of these modifications guarantee that a Czech court will enforce them the way you intend, but they create a much clearer picture of what both parties actually agreed to.

The worst scenario is a vague penalty clause that allows the creditor to claim whatever seems reasonable when a dispute arises. ARROWS Law Firm's experience in advising Brazilian companies on Czech commercial contracts has revealed that many Brazilian executives are simply unaware that these penalty mechanisms exist.

The solicitors at ARROWS Law Firm regularly review Czech contracts for Brazilian clients and identify problematic penalty clauses before they cause damage.

1. If a Czech contract contains a penalty for late payment, can I negotiate it down or request that it be removed?
Yes, you can negotiate. Penalty clauses are subject to negotiation before you sign. Once you have signed, however, you are bound by what you agreed to. That is why careful review before signing is essential. If you would like assistance in reviewing and negotiating penalty clauses, contact ARROWS Law Firm at office@arws.cz.

2. What is the difference between a penalty clause and a claim for actual damages in Czech law?
A penalty clause ( smluvní pokuta ) is enforceable automatically when a breach occurs, without any need to prove damage. A damages claim requires you to prove that you suffered actual financial harm. In Czech law, parties can agree that these claims are cumulative (you pay both). If you are facing a penalty claim from a Czech creditor, write to office@arws.cz.

3. Can a Czech court refuse to enforce a penalty clause if it seems too high?
Yes, under Section 2051 of the Civil Code, courts have the authority to moderate "unreasonably high" penalties. However, they are reluctant to do so in commercial (B2B) relations, and the burden is on you to prove the penalty is disproportionate. This requires litigation.

Mistake #2: Relying on verbal agreements and not understanding form requirements

In Brazil, a verbal commercial agreement can often create binding obligations, particularly if it is followed by conduct that demonstrates the parties' intent to be bound. The Brazilian Civil Code recognizes freedom of form as a general principle.

This flexibility is one reason why Brazilian business culture often emphasizes personal relationships and trust: the assumption is that businesspeople can make deals based on conversation and handshakes.

The Czech Republic operates under a different principle regarding specific types of contracts. While freedom of form applies generally (Section 559 of the Civil Code), Czech law requires written form as a strict condition of validity for certain key commercial agreements.

If a contract is required by statute to be in writing and you enter into it verbally, the contract is void (invalid). This means that from a legal perspective, no contract exists at all. This principle creates a critical trap for Brazilian companies unfamiliar with Czech law.

Imagine that a Brazilian exporter meets with a Czech distributor and discusses the terms of a commercial agency relationship.

Over lunch and in subsequent phone calls, they discuss territory, exclusivity, commission rates, and duration. The Brazilian executive returns to Brazil believing that a binding agreement has been established. The Czech distributor agrees with this understanding and begins promoting the Brazilian products.

After six months, business is going well, but the parties have a disagreement about the exclusivity arrangement. At this point, the Czech distributor consults with a lawyer, who delivers bad news regarding the validity of their arrangement.

Under Section 2483 of the Czech Civil Code, a commercial agency agreement ( smlouva o obchodním zastoupení ) must be executed in writing to be legally valid.

The verbal agreement, no matter how detailed or how long it has been in effect, is invalid for lack of form. The Czech distributor has no enforceable right to exclusivity or continued business, and the commission structure is legally groundless.

This outcome seems absurd to a Brazilian businessperson. The parties have clearly intended to be bound and performance has occurred. But Czech courts apply the statute strictly. The absence of written form for an agency agreement is a fundamental barrier to contract formation.

The requirement for written form applies to several critical types of contracts:

  • Commercial Agency agreements – Must be in writing (Section 2483).
  • Real estate transactions – All contracts transferring or encumbering real estate rights must be in writing (Section 560).
  • Post-contractual non-compete clauses – If a commercial agency agreement includes a non-compete clause, it must be in writing.

For other types of commercial contracts (supply agreements, service contracts, sales contracts), Czech law generally does not require written form as a condition of validity. However, relying on verbal agreements is highly inadvisable.

In practice, all significant commercial contracts with Czech partners should be documented in writing to properly prove warranty periods or limitation of liability.

The formal requirements that cannot be ignored

When you do execute a contract in writing with a Czech partner, you must ensure that the contract complies with all applicable formal requirements. This is more complex than it initially appears. A contract that is technically in writing but fails to include certain mandatory elements can still be challenged as invalid.

For example, if you execute a written agency agreement with a Czech agent but fail to clearly specify the scope of the agency, a Czech court might find the contract indefinite and therefore invalid.

Brazilian companies familiar with their own legal system sometimes assume that once a document is signed and exchanged, the contract is binding and the specific language can be clarified later. This is not how Czech law works. Czech courts do not "fill in" missing essential terms based on what seems reasonable.

The requirement to comply with formal requirements also extends to modifications. Under Section 564 of the Civil Code, if the law requires a contract to be in writing (like an agency agreement), any modifications to that contract must also be in writing.

A verbal modification of a written agency agreement is void, which can create awkward situations where parties have verbally agreed to modify a commission rate but the modification cannot be enforced.

1. If my company has been operating under a verbal agreement with a Czech distributor for two years, is the agreement now binding because we have performed under it?
If the relationship constitutes a "commercial agency" (where the distributor acts on your behalf), the lack of written form renders the contract invalid under Section 2483. Performance does not cure this statutory defect. Consult ARROWS Law Firm at office@arws.cz to evaluate your situation and formalize the relationship.

2. Can I modify a Czech contract verbally if both parties agree?
If the contract is required by law to be in writing (e.g., agency), verbal modifications are void. If the contract was voluntarily put in writing but not required by law, verbal modifications are possible unless the contract itself expressly excludes them. Always document modifications in writing to be safe. If you need to modify an existing Czech contract, contact office@arws.cz.

3. What counts as "written form" in Czech law? Does an email exchange work?
Under Czech law, written form is generally preserved by email if the identity of the acting person is apparent and the text is intelligible. However, for key commercial contracts, a simple email may be insufficient if the parties agreed on a stricter form (e.g., handwritten signatures). For certainty, use qualified electronic signatures (eIDAS standard) or physical signatures. When in doubt, write to office@arws.cz.

Mistake #3: Misunderstanding the statute of limitations and missing critical deadlines

One of the most insidious risks in cross-border commerce is the silent expiration of legal rights. A Brazilian company operating under the assumption that it has ample time to pursue a claim can discover too late that its right to legal action in the Czech Republic has vanished due to a much shorter statute of limitations ( promlčecí lhůta ).

The difference between Brazilian and Czech law is stark, as the standard subjective limitation period for commercial claims in the Czech Republic is only three years.

This period begins to run from the moment the right could be exercised for the first time—typically when the creditor learned, or should have learned, about the circumstances decisive for the commencement of the limitation period.

There is also an objective limitation period of ten years from the date the breach occurred, regardless of knowledge, but the shorter subjective period usually applies first. This difference creates a practical crisis for many Brazilian companies.

Consider a scenario where a Brazilian manufacturing company received a shipment of components from a Czech supplier in May 2023.

Defects in the components became apparent and were confirmed by the quality control team in June 2023. The company's in-house counsel, assuming a long limitation period, decided to pursue a negotiated settlement. Negotiations dragged on through 2024 and 2025.

By June 2026, the Brazilian company decides to file a lawsuit in Czech courts. However, the three-year subjective limitation period began running when the defect was discovered (June 2023). By June 2026, that three-year period has expired.

The claim is now time-barred, and the Czech supplier can successfully raise the objection of limitation ( námitka promlčení ) to have the court dismiss the claim.

This scenario is not hypothetical. ARROWS Law Firm's lawyers have represented Brazilian companies in precisely this situation. The company believed it had ample time to pursue its claim and lost its entire right to recovery due to a three-year deadline that seemed to come out of nowhere.

The complexity of limitation periods in Czech law goes beyond simply knowing that the period is three years. There are different rules about what can suspend or interrupt a limitation period. Importantly, mere negotiations do not stop the clock unless a specific agreement on the suspension of the limitation period is signed.

Acknowledgment of debt is another critical concept; if a debtor acknowledges their debt in writing as to the reason and amount, a new ten-year limitation period begins to run.

How to protect your rights: tracking limitation periods

The only reliable way to protect your rights in Czech commercial relationships is to track limitation periods actively. This requires a systematic approach. First, for every significant contractual relationship with a Czech partner, document the key dates.

Maintain a calendar system that alerts you to the approaching expiration of limitation periods, noting that for a breach discovered in early 2023, the deadline to file suit is early 2026.

If a deadline is approaching, you may need to file a lawsuit to stop the clock. Alternatively, you can attempt to get the debtor to sign an acknowledgment of debt or an agreement to extend the limitation period.

Fourth, remember that for defects in goods, there are also statutory warranty periods (typically 24 months for general consumer goods, but determined by contract in B2B). The limitation period for enforcing rights from defects runs separately.

ARROWS Law Firm's lawyers deal with limitation period issues regularly and the firm's experience has taught the solicitors how to identify potential limitation period problems before they cause irreversible damage.

Mistake #4: Misinterpreting Czech principles of good faith and fair dealing

Brazilian companies often assume that principles of good faith operate similarly across legal systems. In Brazil, good faith ( boa-fé ) is a foundational principle allowing courts to interpret contracts flexibly. Czech law also embraces good faith ( poctivost and dobrá víra ).

Sections 6 and 7 of the Czech Civil Code establish that parties must act fairly, but the application in Czech commercial courts is often quite different.

In Czech law, good faith is not a general tool for rewriting contracts that have become inconvenient. It is primarily a standard of conduct. Crucially, Czech law recognizes a doctrine called pre-contractual liability ( culpa in contrahendo ).

Under Section 1729 of the Czech Civil Code, if negotiations reach a point where the conclusion of a contract appears highly likely, and one party terminates the negotiations without a just cause, they can be held liable for the other party's losses (reliance damages).

This is a significant departure from systems where "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

A Brazilian company that engages in deep negotiations with a Czech partner and then walks away abruptly to take a better offer elsewhere could face a lawsuit for the Czech partner's preparation costs. This applies provided the Czech partner can prove the contract was "highly likely" to be concluded.

Consider a practical scenario: A Brazilian company and a Czech manufacturer engage in detailed negotiations for a long-term supply relationship. The Czech manufacturer invests in preparing facilities. After months of negotiation, the Brazilian company terminates the talks without a clear reason.

Under Czech law, the manufacturer could claim compensation for the costs incurred in preparing for the contract, arguing that the Brazilian company violated the duty to negotiate in good faith.

The practical implications are significant. When negotiating with Czech partners, you should be careful not to create the impression of an almost-concluded contract if you still have significant reservations. You should document your position clearly.

Good faith and the interpretation of ambiguous contract language

Czech law also applies specific rules to contract interpretation. Under Section 557 of the Civil Code, if a term is ambiguous, it is interpreted against the party that used the expression first (typically the drafter)—the contra proferentem rule.

While this applies most strictly in adhesion contracts, it is also a risk in B2B negotiations if one party provides the template.

Additionally, Czech courts apply a subjective-objective method: they first try to determine the actual common intention. If that is not ascertainable, they interpret the contract as a "reasonable person" in the position of the other party would have understood it.

microFAQ – Legal tips on good faith and contract interpretation in Czech law

1. If I have been negotiating intensively with a Czech partner and then decide not to sign the contract, can I be held liable?
Potentially yes, under Section 1729 ( culpa in contrahendo ). If negotiations were advanced and you terminated them without "just cause," you may be liable for the other party's reliance damages. If you are involved in sensitive negotiations, contact office@arws.cz.

2. What does "good faith" really mean in Czech contract law?
It requires honest conduct and prohibits the abuse of rights. It does not typically allow courts to rewrite contracts based on changed economic circumstances unless extreme "hardship" (Section 1765) is proven and was not excluded by contract (which it usually is in B2B deals).

3. If my Czech contract has ambiguous language, how will a Czech court interpret it?
Ambiguous language is often interpreted against the party that drafted it. This is why precise drafting is critical.

Mistake #5: Using Brazilian contract templates without adaptation to Czech law

A common trap for Brazilian companies is to adapt their standard contracts to Czech use without understanding how Czech law modifies the provisions. This approach is risky for several reasons.

First, Czech law contains mandatory provisions ( cogent norms ) that cannot be contracted around, meaning if your standard contract conflicts with these, the provisions are invalid.

Second, a Brazilian contract often contains provisions designed for Brazilian law that are ineffective in Prague. For instance, a clause stating that "all modifications must be in writing" might be redundant for agency agreements (where the law requires it anyway) but crucial for supply agreements.

Third, a Brazilian contract template may miss key protections available under Czech law. For example, Czech law allows parties to exclude the right to claim "hardship" (renegotiation due to change in circumstances).

If your template doesn't explicitly exclude Section 1765 of the Civil Code, a Czech partner might demand price renegotiation if inflation spikes.

Fourth, terminology matters. Using terms like "termination" loosely can be dangerous. Czech law distinguishes between "withdrawal" ( odstoupení ) which cancels the contract ex tunc , and "termination by notice" ( výpověď ) which ends it ex nunc . Using the wrong term in a template can lead to unintended consequences.

ARROWS Law Firm's lawyers regularly encounter Brazilian clients who have attempted to adapt their standard contracts to Czech use and have missed critical issues. The solicitors at ARROWS Law Firm work with Brazilian companies to review and revise their Czech contracts to ensure compliance with local law.

Risk and sanctions: what happens when mistakes are made

Risks and Sanctions

How ARROWS Helps (office@arws.cz)

Accumulation of Penalty and Damages: Falling into the trap where a contract allows the creditor to claim both the full contractual penalty AND full compensation for damages, doubling your liability.

Contract drafting and penalty clause design: ARROWS Law Firm prepares Czech-compliant contracts that clearly define the relationship between penalties and damages.

Void agency agreements due to lack of written form: Discovering that a verbal agency agreement has no legal force under Section 2483, leaving you with no claim to exclusivity or commission.

Legal documentation: ARROWS Law Firm ensures all agency agreements are properly documented and executed in compliance with Czech statutory form requirements.

Time-barred claims (3-year rule): Filing a lawsuit too late because you relied on a longer foreign limitation period, resulting in complete loss of valid claims.

Limitation period tracking: ARROWS Law Firm assists clients in calculating exact deadlines (subjective vs. objective) and taking timely action to interrupt limitation periods.

Pre-contractual Liability: Facing claims for reliance damages after walking away from advanced negotiations without just cause.

Negotiation management: ARROWS Law Firm advises on how to conduct negotiations without triggering liability and documents "just cause" if withdrawal is necessary.

Executive summary for management

Key findings for senior executives and decision-makers:

  1. Penalty clauses are strict and independent: Contractual penalties ( smluvní pokuta ) are enforceable even without proof of damage. Unless carefully drafted, they can be cumulative with actual damages.
  2. Form requirements are non-negotiable: Agency agreements must be in writing (Sec. 2483 CZCC). Verbal deals in this area are void.
  3. The clock ticks faster: The standard subjective limitation period is 3 years. Active tracking is required to avoid losing rights.
  4. Drafting matters: "Brazilian" templates often fail in Czech courts due to mandatory local rules and specific terminology (e.g., withdrawal vs. termination).
  5. Cross-border expertise is vital: Disputes involve complex conflicts of laws. ARROWS Law Firm's experience prevents procedural errors that destroy claims.
Conclusion

Conducting business with Czech partners offers Brazilian companies significant opportunities. The Czech Republic is a stable gateway to the European Union. However, this opportunity comes with a requirement: understanding and adapting to the local legal framework.

The mistakes outlined in this article—underestimating penalty clauses, relying on verbal agreements, missing limitation periods, and using unadapted templates—are serious, but preventable.

The good news is that ARROWS Law Firm has spent over a decade helping foreign companies navigate these issues. The solicitors at ARROWS Law Firm combine in-depth knowledge of Czech law with practical experience in cross-border business.

For Brazilian companies, the most cost-effective investment is early consultation, as this typically takes just a few hours but can save hundreds of thousands of euros.

If you are facing questions about Czech contracts, negotiating with Czech partners, or concerned about an existing business relationship, contact ARROWS Law Firm at office@arws.cz.

1. Our company has been operating with a Czech distributor under a verbal agreement. Is it unenforceable?
If the relationship is a "commercial agency" (the distributor acts on your behalf), it is likely void for lack of form under Section 2483 of the Civil Code. You should immediately consult ARROWS Law Firm to formalize the relationship in writing. If it is a simple buy-sell supply relationship, it may be valid but hard to prove. Contact office@arws.cz.

2. Can I ignore a high penalty clause?
No. Penalty clauses are fully enforceable. While courts can moderate "unreasonably high" penalties, this is difficult to prove in B2B disputes. You must negotiate caps or limitations before signing.

3. We discovered a defect in goods from 2023. Can we sue in 2026?
The subjective limitation period is 3 years from when you learned of the defect. If you discovered it in early 2023, your claim expires in early 2026. Immediate action is required. Contact ARROWS Law Firm at office@arws.cz.

4. Can we modify our Czech contract verbally?
If the contract requires written form by law (e.g., agency), verbal modifications are void. Always document modifications in writing.

5. How should we adapt our standard Brazilian contracts?
Do not simply translate them. They must be reviewed against mandatory Czech laws (e.g., notice periods, penalty rules, withdrawal rights). ARROWS Law Firm can adapt your templates to be fully enforceable in the Czech Republic.

6. What should we do before signing?
(1) Have a Czech lawyer review the text; (2) Check penalty clauses; (3) Verify written form compliance; (4) Set up a system to track the 3-year limitation period. Contact office@arws.cz for a preliminary consultation.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is for general informational purposes only and serves as a basic guide to the issue. Although we strive for maximum accuracy in the content, legal regulations and their interpretation evolve. To verify the current wording of the regulations and their application to your specific situation, it is necessary to contact ARROWS Law Firm directly (office@arws.cz). We accept no responsibility for any damage or complications arising from the independent use of the information in this article without our prior individual legal consultation.

Read also