(Decision of the Supreme Court from 22 February 2016, file no. 20 Cdo 218/2016)
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by which the plaintiff (in Czech: dovolatel) sought to declare ineffectiveness of the delivery of a debt recovery petition which had been issued against him. The plaintiff argued that due to his employment abroad he had not been present for a long time at the address which he had previously specified as his address for delivering in the information system of population evidence.
According to the Supreme Court, such reason (as well as hospitalization) would be justifiable only if the person is not present at the address of its permanent residence. However, if the plaintiff specified his address for delivering, it is then not possible to object that he was not present at this address. If such address is changed in fact, it is up to this person to change the entry in the information system accordingly.