NEW LEGISLATION TO FACILITATE THE EVICTION OF PROBLEM TENANTS

On 12 June 2024, the Government approved new legislation proposed by Justice Minister Pavel Blažek that will make it easier for landlords to evict troubled former tenants by means of the so-called eviction order, or "warrant procedure". This will shorten and, above all, simplify court proceedings. The Minister of Justice himself cites one of the reasons for this change as the acceleration of the protection of landlords' property rights against unauthorised use of the flat by former tenants.

Specifically, this will involve a new institute under Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "CCP"), the so-called injunction proceedings, which, according to the explanatory memorandum, should speed up the protection of the landlord's property rights in the event that the former tenant uses the subject of the lease without legal reason, the purpose of which is to achieve the eviction of the subject of the lease. This order procedure will thus essentially replicate the order procedure already regulated by the CCP, however, it will deal with non-monetary performance - the subject of the lease.

This procedure will apply only to cases where a tenancy relationship previously existed between the plaintiff (landlord) and the defendant (former tenant) which has ended. Therefore, this proceeding cannot deal with cases concerning rights in rem or other obligations, not even a sublease relationship.

The proceedings shall be brought on the application of the applicant, who must allege and prove by documentary evidence the following:

• the plaintiff has ownership of the apartment or house;
• the defendant has no valid legal reason for using the flat or house. The claimant must therefore allege that the tenancy relationship has ended (e.g. by producing a notice of termination of the tenancy agreement, a certificate of delivery, etc.) and support this allegation with documentary evidence, e.g. the tenancy agreement and documentary evidence proving the fulfilment of the relevant ground for termination (e.g. bank statements), or to prove the termination of the tenancy for other reasons.

If the application does not contain such elements, the court will invite the applicant to remove its defects in accordance with Section 43(1) of the CCP. Should the applicant fail to remove the defects, the court shall assess whether the application is admissible and either order a hearing or reject the application pursuant to Section 43(2) of the CCP. 

Due to the specifics of the tenancy relationship and the increased protection that the tenant enjoys under the law, two additional conditions under which an eviction order cannot be granted are also regulated. 

These are, first of all, the situation where the claimant does not enclose with the action a written notice to vacate sent to the defendant before the action is brought. This must be sent by the claimant to the defendant at least 14 days before the action is brought, to the address for service, which will normally be the address specified in the tenancy agreement. There is therefore a certain similarity with a pre-action notice (section 142a of the CCP), but the tenant is allowed a longer period of time to carry out the voluntary eviction.

It will also be a situation where the tenant is within the time limit for filing a lawsuit to assess the validity of the termination pursuant to Section 2290 of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code ("CC"). Therefore, if the tenant has already filed the lawsuit within the statutory time limit of two months, the court cannot issue an eviction order until the proceedings on the tenant's lawsuit have been finally concluded. In such a case, the proceedings should be stayed pursuant to section 109(1)(b) of the CCP.

For the remaining issues, these proceedings will refer to the existing rules on the order for payment under Sections 172(2) and (3) and 173 and 174 of the CCP, which contain the general rules applicable to other order proceedings.

Finally, it should be emphasised that the introduction of this institution should not affect or otherwise adversely affect the existing rules governing the procedure for an action for ejectment by increasing the requirements as to form or substance.

If you have any questions on this topic or related issues, please do not hesitate to contact us. We will be happy to learn more about your case and provide you with appropriate legal assistance.

Responsible Attorney: JUDr. Lukáš Dořičák, LL.M., MBA, Kateřina Chaloupková collaborated on the article.