According to the Supreme Court, an objection of a limitation period in the dispute over compensation for restriction of property rights, is in conflict with good morals

(Decision of the Supreme Court, file no. 31 Cdo 1042/2017, from 13 December 2017)

In this case, the plaintiff sought compensation for the damage suffered by the Czech Republic as a result of the forced restraint of ownership due to unconstitutional rent regulation. The amount requested corresponded to the difference between market and regulated rent in the period from 1 September 2003 to 31 August 2006. However, the State on the defendant's side objected to the limitation of the right to compensation.

In the Supreme Court's view, the State's statute of limitations objection should not be accepted by the general courts at all because it is in conflict with good morals. It is based on the Constitutional Court's finding of a State’s failure, in which the State was not providing for a long time adequate protection for landlords, in this case by virtue of its unconstitutional inaction consisting of not adopting a special regulation, which would allow the landlords to increase rent in some cases.

Regarding the amount of compensation, the Supreme Court follows from the conclusions of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which it should be essentially identical to the difference between market and regulated rents.