Who Owns AI-Generated Code? Key Risks and Contracts in the Czech Republic and EU

JUDr. Jakub Dohnal, Ph.D., LL.M.
JUDr. Jakub Dohnal, Ph.D., LL.M.
19.4.2026 | ARROWS law firm

When you have AI generate code, it is not at all clear who owns that code. In standard development, ownership is addressed in an employment contract or a contractor agreement. With AI, it is more complicated. Code created without substantial human creative input may not be legally protected at all. Find out what risks you face, how ownership is determined in the Czech Republic and in the EU, and what you must not overlook in your contracts.

The photograph shows an expert consulting on the ownership of AI-generated code.

Quick summary

  • Copyright in AI-generated code is uncertain: without sufficient human creative input, the code cannot be protected by copyright, so practically anyone can use it.
  • Employees: the code belongs to the employer if it is created within the scope of work duties; for AI-generated code, it is advisable to document human contributions and address this explicitly in the contract.
  • Contractors and suppliers: without a written agreement with an explicit assignment of rights, the code belongs to the developer, not you – which can complicate a company sale, fundraising, or partnerships.
  • Risks come from three sources: security vulnerabilities in AI-generated code, licence breaches (GPL, MIT, etc.), and disputes over copyright in the data used to train AI.

Why is code ownership critically important in the AI era?

In the last months of 2025 and at the beginning of 2026, we have seen a number of court cases in the USA (for example, Doe v. GitHub) and in Europe dealing with authorship of AI-generated works. In the Czech Republic, for example, the Municipal Court in Prague has already ruled that an AI-generated image is not protected by copyright without demonstrable human creative activity. This is not just a legal abstraction. If you do not know who owns your code, you can expect problems that will reduce your company’s value, block an investment, or put you on the defensive in litigation.

Code ownership is essential for several key areas. When selling or merging companies, the buyer will ask you for warranties that you truly own the code. If you cannot provide clean title, the transaction will be blocked.

In contractual commitments to clients, you promise code exclusivity; if you do not own it, you are in breach of contract and risk being sued. When licensing, without clear ownership you cannot provide the code to third parties and you are unable to enforce your rights. Finally, without ownership you cannot effectively protect your competitive advantage as a trade secret, and your investment in development may be difficult to monetise.

This is why the attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář see ownership of AI-generated code as one of the most common legal gaps that then surfaces at the worst possible times – in a buyer’s reluctance to acquire your company, in a regulator’s request, or in a court dispute.

How is ownership of AI-generated code determined in legal reality?

In the USA, as well as in the Czech Republic and other European Union countries, a basic principle has applied since the foundational legislation (the 1976 Copyright Act in the USA, and the Czech Copyright Act No. 121/2000 Coll.): only works created by a human are subject to copyright.

In March 2025, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (USA) again confirmed that artificial intelligence cannot be an author. Even if someone gives an AI a command – prompting alone, without further creative work, is not enough for a person to be considered the author.

This means very concretely: code that AI generates without meaningful human creative interaction is not protected by copyright. Without copyright protection, practically anyone can use it. It does not protect your competitive advantage, it cannot be effectively enforced, and in a company acquisition you will simply say, “that’s not ours.”

Czech legal practice follows the same principles as the USA and the European Union on this point. In the Czech Republic, this issue has not yet been extensively litigated in the courts (unlike in the USA), but case law from other EU countries and interpretations by Czech lawyers indicate that Czech courts will behave the same way: without human creative work, there is no copyright protection.

What counts as sufficient human creative work?

The attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář handle specific cases in practice and know that the line between a “simple prompt” and “creative input” is often blurred in court. In general, the following is recognised as creative work:

  • Repeated, targeted prompting – not just one simple command like “create a login,” but a series of sophisticated instructions with specific requirements.
  • Editing, modifying, and improving the AI output – the developer intentionally changes parts of the code, reworks the logic, fixes errors.
  • Substantive decision-making about the architecture and structure of the code – the person independently chooses how the whole will be structured, which patterns to use, and how to integrate AI-generated pieces.
  • Integrating an AI-generated part into the overall system with one’s own intellectual contribution – not merely “gluing together” AI outputs, but a systemic approach where AI-generated code is part of a broader creative vision.

Practical example: if a developer enters the AI prompt “create a login form” and takes the code exactly as returned by the AI, without further modifications, simply copying it into the project – that is not enough for copyright protection.

However, if they specify particular security requirements, iteratively fix errors, rewrite key parts for integration with the rest of the application, and create documentation explaining how it works, they have a better chance of having creative authorship recognised.

The problem is that the boundary is uncertain. Even experienced lawyers are not always sure in litigation where exactly “creative work” begins and where “mere application” ends. That is why the attorneys at ARROWS recommend that whenever the code is important for your business, you document everything that happened – prompt logs, file versions, edits made, everything. This documentation then becomes your best evidence in court.

Related questions on determining authorship of AI-generated code

1. If I enter a prompt into ChatGPT and take the generated code, does it belong to me?
Legally – no. Entering a prompt alone, without more, is not sufficient creative activity. ChatGPT (or any other large language model) generates code based on its training and algorithm; these operate unpredictably. If you take the code exactly as returned by the AI, without further modifications and without clear editing, copyright did not arise through a creative act on your part. It is not your code, even if you prompted it. For copyright, it would have to be part of something larger where your personal imprint and choices are evident.

2. How can I later “prove” that I had a creative contribution to the code?
Through documentation. You should keep prompt logs with timestamps, code versions showing iterations and changes, design documents showing how you changed the code and why, and testing records showing that you tested and modified the code. The attorneys at ARROWS can help you set up a legally robust and auditable system for AI-assisted development.

3. Is “non-public” prompting enough for me to have copyright?
No, it is not based on that at all. The fact that you “thought it in your head” or wrote it in a private prompt is not enough. Copyright arises in a fixed work – i.e., from the moment the code exists in some physical or digital form. Then the question is: who is the author of what is there? Is it AI, or is it you? Without further evidence, it is treated as AI-generated without your creative input.

Code ownership in an employment relationship

In an employment relationship, the rule is clear and is set directly in the Czech Copyright Act: the copyright to a work created by an employee in the performance of their work duties is exercised by the employer in its own name and on its own account (Copyright Act No. 121/2000 Coll., Section 58(1)), unless the contract provides otherwise.

This applies regardless of whether the code is generated by a human, partially by AI, or fully AI-generated. However, one condition is critical: although the employer exercises the rights by operation of law, it is highly recommended that this also follows from the employment contract or an internal company policy—clearly and specifically enough.

Companies that assumed “it’s obvious” without stating it explicitly later found that the employee has some room to argue—especially if they file a claim asserting that “AI generated the code, I just clicked.” If the contract says nothing, or is vague (“the employee participates in projects”), a dispute may arise.

Written documentation is key here. You should:

  • Have a written employment contract (or at least an addendum) that expressly states that all intellectual property created within the scope of work duties belongs to the employer.
  • Implement an internal AI policy or directive specifying how AI tools may and may not be used, and that all output belongs to the company.
  • Document which AI tools employees used within the project and how they used them—especially what the human creative contribution was.

Attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář regularly help companies with such policies and with reviewing employment contracts. This is not just an academic exercise—it is protection that will matter in the event of a dispute, a conflict with an employee, or a review by third parties (an investor, a buyer).

Code ownership for independent suppliers and contractors

Here, the situation becomes more complicated—and for many entrepreneurs, surprisingly so.

In the USA, the Czech Republic, and the EU, the following basic principle applies: if you hire an independent developer, an agency, or a contractor and they generate code for you, the code belongs to them by law unless a written contract expressly states otherwise. It is not like with an employee. An independent contractor “works for themselves”—even if you pay them, legally they are creating for themselves, not for you.

For ownership to be transferred to you, the written contract must include:

  • An express assignment of rights—in English, this is called an “assignment of rights.” In Czech, it should read, for example: “Zhotovitel převádí na Objednatele veškerá autorská práva, včetně výlučných práv na užívání, reprodukci, distribuci a úpravu, na veškerý kód vytvořený v rozsahu této smlouvy o dílo, a to s okamžitou účinností a v plném rozsahu.”
  • It must be signed by both parties. A verbal agreement, an email, or a spoken promise is not legally binding. It must be a written document with signatures.
  • It must be an immediate transfer of rights—it must be “The Contractor assigns/transfers” or “The Contractor hereby assigns,” not “The Contractor will agree to transfer.”

What problem often occurs? A company hires an agency, the contract either says nothing about ownership at all or contains a vague sentence about a “licence,” and then the company finds out that:

  • The agency reuses the code as a template for its other projects and sells it to competitors.
  • The agency “lends” the code to competitors because it effectively owns it.
  • When selling the company, a buyer appears who has conducted a review (due diligence), and the buyer’s lawyer concludes that your software is not actually your property—you only have a licence, i.e., limited rights.
  • The transaction is blocked, the price is reduced by 20–50% (or more), or the deal is cancelled entirely. This is a common legal reason why a transaction may not be feasible at all.

This is serious, and attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář see similar cases far too often. They are ready to address such situations—both through prevention (proper contract drafting at the outset) and through remediation if the problem has already occurred.

Related questions on code ownership for suppliers and contractors

1. I have an agency that developed software for me. The contract said nothing about ownership. Do I own the code?
Legally—no, unless you expressly agreed on it. You most likely have a licence—the right to use the code—but not ownership. This means the agency controls it and can license it to competitors or provide it to multiple clients. If you want to fix this, you must negotiate it with the agency retroactively. It is a more difficult situation; the agency will have a stronger negotiating position because it already knows the code is valuable and will want payment for the assignment of rights. ARROWS attorneys in Prague can help you with negotiations and with drafting an addendum.

2. I want to buy software from another company. What should I verify so I don’t buy a “pig in a poke”?
You should request written evidence (a copy of the contract, confirmation from the seller’s lawyer) that the party selling the code truly owns it. Verify whether third parties contributed to the code—i.e., whether it contains components from others (e.g., open source) that have their own licensing terms. Check whether there is open source with complex licensing conditions (especially copyleft licences such as GPL, which could require you to disclose your own code as well). These are matters ARROWS attorneys in Prague address when vetting business partners and during the due diligence process. You should not buy a “patched-together” product without such verification.

3. Can I have my employee sign an assignment of rights back to me if they took them without my knowledge?
In general, yes, but in some countries (especially France and Germany) there are statutory restrictions on copyright transfers. In the Czech Republic, it is usually possible, but you must do it properly—in writing and with mutual consent. Do not do it “under the table,” i.e., without an official process; it is a legal act that must be documented. It may happen that the employee will not be willing to sign—especially if they later learn the matter is valuable. In practice, it always pays off to have this addressed in the employment contract from the very beginning.

What risks arise from failing to clarify code ownership?

This is not merely theoretical. In practice, entrepreneurs avoid ownership questions—and then the problem arises at the worst possible moment.

Risk 1: Blocking the sale of the company or financing

When you are preparing for a sale of the company, an investor’s entry, or a merger with another company, the first thing a buyer or investor will verify is: “Do you really own all the code that forms the core of your business?”

If the answer is “We’re not sure, we use AI-generated code, it’s unclear what part belongs to us and what part belongs to the supplier,” or “We have a licence from an agency, but we never addressed ownership,” the due diligence (legal review) will stop.

The buyer will fear that one day a competitor will prohibit it or that the agency will take the code back. The transaction will be delayed, the price will be reduced by 20–50% (or more), or the deal will be cancelled entirely. This is a common legal reason why a transaction may not be feasible at all.

Risk 2: Copyright disputes and unexpected lawsuits

If your code is similar to another entrepreneur’s code and you cannot prove that you created it through your own creative work (especially with AI), you may be sued for copyright infringement.

A person who claims to own the code and is unhappy with you may sue you for “unauthorized use”. At the same time, if the AI you use trained its model on third-party data without their consent, you may find yourself having to defend a third-party copyright infringement claim.

This was the case with Getty Images and The New York Times against OpenAI and other AI companies. If your software contains snippets that the AI copied from their material, they may send the claim to you as well.

Risks specific to AI-generated code:
  • Security vulnerabilities: AI is trained on public data; this may include old, vulnerable code and outdated security practices. AI has learned these patterns and will occasionally reproduce them. If you integrate AI-generated code without a thorough security review, you may introduce SQL injection, XSS, or other vulnerabilities into your application.
  • Licence violations: AI may generate a piece of code under the GPL or AGPL licence (copyleft licences), and you integrate it into your proprietary software without realizing it is there. Later it is discovered and you are obliged to disclose the entire codebase – a disaster for competitive advantage.
  • Unknown origin: If AI generates code that resembles someone else’s, and this is later discovered and that person claims it as their own, you may end up buying yourself a patent or copyright dispute. It is known that AI tools sometimes “hallucinate” – generating snippets that look like code they saw during training.
Risks arising from insufficient documentation:
  • You cannot prove that you made a creative contribution to the code – so copyright does not apply to it.
  • You cannot prove that an employee created it within the scope of their duties – the employee may then believe it is theirs.
  • You cannot rule out that you breached an open-source licence – during a regulator’s audit or in court, it will not look good.

Most common risks and how ARROWS helps

Potential issues

How ARROWS helps (office@arws.cz)

Unclear code ownership when selling the company or bringing in an investor

ARROWS attorneys in Prague will verify the chain of title, analyse employment and supplier contracts, and prepare the necessary amendments or assignments of rights so that the ownership chain is clear and secure for the buyer. They will also arrange an audit of AI-generated code with regard to human creative contribution.

Dispute with a supplier over who owns the code

ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, will provide representation in negotiations with the supplier and, if necessary, in court proceedings. Before that, they will help you analyse your legal position and your prospects.

Risk of open-source licence breaches in AI-generated code

ARROWS attorneys in Prague will help you implement a licence audit and will draft or review internal policies for the use of AI tools. They can also arrange for existing code to be reviewed by specialists.

Copyright infringement – a claim from a third party or the threat of litigation

ARROWS will provide a defence against allegations of copyright infringement and, if necessary, representation in court proceedings. They will be involved in negotiations with the claimant and in preparing the strategy.

Uncertainty as to whether AI-generated code is protected by copyright

ARROWS attorneys in Prague will prepare a legal opinion based on the current legal interpretation in the Czech Republic and the EU. They will help secure alternative protection, such as trade secrets or a patent.

Legal framework in the EU, in the Czech Republic, and new regulation

The Czech Republic is governed primarily by the Copyright Act (No. 121/2000 Coll.), which protects works created by humans. Legal interpretation is based on EU Directive 2019/790 (the Copyright Directive in the Digital Single Market), which harmonises copyright across the EU.

In addition, the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) entered into force on 1 August 2024 and will be phased in gradually through the end of 2026.

What does the EU AI Act mean for you?

The EU AI Act classifies AI systems into categories based on risk. If you develop software using AI that falls into the “high-risk” category (for example, decision-making in employment, access to services, or systems used in critical infrastructure), you must meet strict obligations:

  • Documentation – you must keep a detailed record of how the AI works, what its limitations are, and how it was developed.
  • Testing and validation – you must test the AI and verify that it does what it is supposed to do and that it is reliable and accurate.
  • Event logging (audit trail) – you must keep records of how the AI operates and what decisions it makes so that its functioning can be reviewed retrospectively.
  • Human oversight – you must ensure meaningful human oversight of AI decisions so that a person can intervene and correct the decision.
  • Cybersecurity – you must ensure that the AI is secure and resilient against attacks, manipulation, and unauthorised access.

The obligations will be introduced gradually and will be fully effective for high-risk AI systems from August 2026. If the software you develop is not classified as “high-risk AI”, you have lighter obligations (e.g., transparency), but you should verify which category your system falls into.

A revision of the existing Product Liability Directive is also expected, which will have a significant impact on liability for damage caused by AI systems. This newly proposed framework envisages stricter liability for AI.

If AI generates a security vulnerability in code and it causes damage (e.g., a hacker accesses data through your application), you may be liable even if you “thought things through” and did what was reasonable. The introduction of “strict liability” is anticipated – you are liable regardless of fault. This is why auditing and documenting AI-generated code is more necessary than ever.

In the Czech Republic, there is not yet specific legislation for AI-generated software (as there is in some other countries), but case law is developing. Attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, monitor developments in the courts’ decisions and are ready to advise you based on the latest legal interpretation.

Related questions on the legal framework in the EU and the Czech Republic

1. Is AI-generated code legal in the Czech Republic?
Yes, AI-generated code is legal. The issue is not that it would be illegal, but rather its ownership and protection. If AI-generated code has no human creative contribution, it is not protected by copyright – that is the legal reality. But using AI for software development is legal. There is no penalty for it. However, you should be aware that without copyright protection you have limited legal protection and your competitive advantage is constrained.

2. Do I have to report to the state if I develop AI software?
In the Czech Republic, there is no general reporting obligation. However, if you develop applications that fall under the EU AI Act (especially “high-risk AI” systems), you must comply with the obligations under this regulation. If you develop software used to make decisions about people’s access to services (e.g., a customer service chatbot that filters inquiries), or software for HR decision-making, or software in healthcare, you should verify whether these obligations apply to you. The attorneys at ARROWS can help you determine whether this applies to you.

3. What impact does the EU AI Act have on my code and my business?
If your code or product falls under “high-risk AI” under the EU AI Act, you must meet strict obligations: detailed documentation, testing, event logging, human oversight, and cybersecurity. These obligations are being introduced gradually; full effectiveness for high-risk systems starts in August 2026. If you have software that falls into any of these “high-risk” categories, you should start preparing now. Don’t wait until August. It is advisable to implement compliance mapping and prepare your systems. The attorneys at ARROWS can assist you with a compliance audit, mapping what to focus on, and preparing the documentation the EU will require.

Practical steps you need to take now

If you use AI for software development, you should ask without delay:

Step 1: Do you have existing documentation proving your creative contribution to AI-generated code?

If not, start immediately. Without documentation, you will not be able to prove creative authorship later.

You should keep prompt logs with timestamps, code versions showing iterations and changes, design documents, and schematics you created. Start doing this today. It will cost you a few hours a week, but in a year it will save you a lot of trouble.

Step 2: Do you have a contract with all employees and contractors that clearly states that all code belongs to you?

If not, this is a critical deficiency. Contact the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, to review and amend your contracts.

This is not just about having a sentence on copyright. You should ensure it is drafted clearly and specifically for your situation. For employees: the clause in the employment contract must be specific and refer to Section 58 of the Czech Copyright Act. For contractors: an addendum or a new contract with an explicit assignment of rights.

Step 3: Do you use open-source components (libraries, frameworks)?

Do you know what licenses they have? If not, the risk is significant. A license audit should be carried out as soon as possible. If your software contains code licensed under the GPL and you believe everything is proprietary, you have a problem. The attorneys at ARROWS can help with this.

Step 4: Do you have an internal AI policy?

Do you know who can use which AI tools? What is allowed and what is not? If not, you should implement one.

Mishandling AI (e.g., an employee sending proprietary data to ChatGPT) can create a security or legal issue that will be difficult to explain during an inspection or in court. The attorneys at ARROWS can help you with such internal guidelines.

Step 5: Contracts with new suppliers

If you hire an agency or a developer, make sure the contract includes an explicit transfer of all rights to all code, including AI-generated code. Have it drafted by the attorneys at ARROWS so it is legally watertight and clearly states who is the author, who is the owner, and that the rights are unconditionally assigned to you.

The attorneys at ARROWS can help you with all five steps. This is not just a “check-box” list—it is a strategic approach that protects you in the long term.

Final summary

Code ownership in the AI era is not just a legal issue—it is the issue that determines whether you will have exclusivity over your software, whether you will be able to sell it, whether a competitor can take it, and whether, when selling your company, a buyer will tell you, “no thanks, that’s not your code.”

The key takeaway is this: entering an AI prompt alone is not enough for copyright protection. There must be documented human creative work. This means that companies that use AI without clear documentation and without clear contracts expose themselves to enormous risk. When an investor or buyer looks at it, or when a court examines it, they will find that “things are not clear,” and the transaction will either stall or the price will be reduced.

The second takeaway is that the EU AI Act and the newly proposed Product Liability Directive bring stricter liability. If AI-generated code causes a security incident or an infringement of rights, you will not be able to excuse yourself by saying “AI did it.” You are responsible. You are responsible for quality, security, and licensing compliance.

The third takeaway is that ownership is handled on paper. Without a written contract with a clear assignment of rights, it is not clear who owns the code. Discussing it by email, or “relying on it being clear,” is not sufficient.

If you do not want to risk serious legal, financial, and business problems—and believe us, it happens—you should act now. The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can provide a comprehensive solution:

  • Review of your existing contracts and identification of gaps.
  • Updating employee and supplier contracts.
  • Preparation of an AI policy and a compliance audit.
  • Legal opinions on specific issues.
  • Representation if a dispute arises.

Do not hesitate to contact ARROWS advokátní kancelář at office@arws.cz. They will be happy to help you with ownership of your code and with avoiding similar problems in the future. Thanks to the ARROWS International network, ARROWS advokátní kancelář also handles matters with an international element, if relevant to your situation.

FAQ: Software development using artificial intelligence

1. Do I own AI-generated code if an employee created it during working hours?
It should belong to you if it falls within the scope of their job duties. The Czech Copyright Act (Act No. 121/2000 Coll., Section 58(1)) provides that the employer exercises the economic rights to a work created by an employee in the performance of their work duties in the employer’s own name and on the employer’s own account. However, an explicit clause in the employment contract significantly strengthens this arrangement and prevents disputes, especially with AI-generated code. Without clear wording and documentation, there may be uncertainty regarding the creative contribution. It is also advisable to document what access the employee had to AI, so that it is clear later that there was human creative work and not “just clicking a button.” If you are not sure, or you have an older contract without such a provision, ask the attorneys at ARROWS at office@arws.cz.

2. If I hire an agency and we do not have an assignment of rights agreement, can I use the code?
You most likely have a licence—the right to use it—but not ownership. This means the agency can also provide it to your competitors, or reuse it as a template for other clients. This is a serious issue, especially if you want to sell the code later or if you are preparing for a sale of the company. Without ownership, you will not be able to monetise such code in a sale, and the buyer will be uneasy and will push the price down. You should agree this with the agency now, for example by an addendum to the original agreement. ARROWS attorneys in Prague can assist you with negotiations and drafting the agreement at office@arws.cz.

3. Is AI-generated code protected by copyright?
Only partially. As regards code generated by AI without further human contribution, copyright does not apply to it. However, if that code includes your approach, your modifications, your architectural decisions and your edits, then that part is protected by copyright. Documentation is critically important here—prompt logs, file versions, design documents. ARROWS attorneys in Prague can help you clarify this for your specific case and, in the event of a dispute, help you enforce your rights.

4. What is the difference between copyright and trade secret protection for AI-generated code?Copyright protects the “expression”—i.e., how the code is written, its specific form. A trade secret protects the “information”—i.e., the fact that the code exists and what function it performs. Copyright protects you against someone physically copying it. A trade secret aims to protect you from others even knowing how the code works and what it contains. Copyright generally does not require registration, but it lasts for a certain period of time and then expires. A trade secret lasts as long as the information remains secret and you take measures to keep it confidential; if it is disclosed, the protection ends. With AI-generated code, where copyright is uncertain, trade secret protection is often more useful. ARROWS attorneys in Prague can help you decide which solution is right for you, or whether it is best to combine both.

5. What happens if AI-generated code infringes someone’s copyright?
If your AI-generated code contains snippets of code that the AI copied from open-source or proprietary third-party code without permission, you could be sued for copyright infringement. Liability falls on you, not on the AI company—they typically include a disclaimer in their terms that releases them from liability. This is why a licensing audit must be carried out and why you should be careful about what code you integrate into your application. ARROWS attorneys in Prague can arrange an audit and prepare a defence strategy if you find yourself in litigation.

6. What obligations does the EU AI Act impose on me if I develop AI-assisted software?
If your software is classified as “high-risk AI” (for example, decision-making on employment, access to services, credit scoring, etc.), you must meet strict obligations: detailed documentation, testing, event logging, human oversight and cybersecurity. These obligations are being introduced gradually, and for high-risk systems they will be fully effective from August 2026. If your software is not in the high-risk category, you have lighter obligations—especially transparency (you must tell users that AI is involved)—but you should verify which category your system falls into. ARROWS attorneys in Prague can carry out a compliance audit and mapping of what to focus on. Contact them at office@arws.cz.

Notice: The information contained in this article is of a general informational nature only and is intended to provide basic guidance on the topic under the legal framework as of 2026. Although we take the utmost care to ensure accuracy, legal regulations and their interpretation evolve over time. We are ARROWS advokátní kancelář, an entity registered with the Czech Bar Association (our supervisory authority), and for maximum client protection we maintain professional liability insurance with a limit of CZK 400,000,000. To verify the current wording of regulations and their application to your specific situation, it is necessary to contact ARROWS advokátní kancelář directly (office@arws.cz). We accept no liability for any damages arising from the independent use of the information in this article without prior individual legal consultation.

Read also: