Does a condominium association (unit owners' association) have a passive legal standing (i.e. the capacity to be sued or named as a defendant a lawsuit) in emission claims where the emission originates from the common parts of the building (e.g. noise generated within a building or by its equipment, vibrations or pollution)?
This very issue was addressed by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment, Case No. 26 Cdo 2545/2025, dated 14 January 2026.
Condominium ownership in the Czech Republic is governed by the Civil Code (Act No. 89/2012 Coll.), which defines it as a combination of exclusive ownership of a specific unit (apartment or non-residential unit) and co-ownership of the common parts of the building and the land. Units are registered as individual immovable property in the cadastral register, with inseparably attached co-ownership shares of common parts of the building and land.
The condominium association acts as a legal entity managing and maintaining the property (common parts of the building and land). Owners have exclusive rights to their units but must adhere to the condominium association rules, including contributing to maintenance costs based on their co-ownership share (share to common parts of building and land). Owners are liable for the condominium association's debts in proportion to their share. While the condominium association handles operations, major decisions are made by the assembly of co-owners (assembly of owners of units).
According to the legal opinion of the Supreme Court, a unit owner may seek protection against emissions by way of a negative (negatory) action pursuant to Section 1013(1) of the Civil Code even against the condominium association, provided that the emission emanates from the common parts of the building. Where the source of the emission lies in the common parts, the condominium association has passive legal standing to be sued as the entity responsible for their maintenance. The mere existence of internal governance mechanisms within the condominium (including Section 1209 of the Civil Code) does not preclude judicial protection of ownership rights.
Where a claimant, as the owner of a unit as a real property, seeks protection against emissions, the statement of claim must be formulated so as to request that the defendant (condominium association) be ordered to refrain from any conduct resulting in specific emissions (in this case, moisture) penetrating from the defendant’s real property, as specified in the claim, onto the claimant’s property (unit). If the court finds that, in the particular case, the emission exceeds a level proportionate to local conditions and substantially restricts the ordinary use of the property (unit), it will grant the claim; in the reasoning of its judgment, the court will set out both the level of emission that is proportionate to local conditions and the level established in the case at hand.
Having regard to the specific nature of condominium co-ownership, in emission disputes between a unit owner and the condominium association, or between unit owners inter se, it is acceptable to designate as the “real property” from which the emission originates (and likewise the “real property” affected by it) a specific, physically delimited part of the building (e.g. the roof, corridor, staircase, drying room, or a flat as a spatially separated part of the building), notwithstanding the fact that such part does not constitute a separate thing in the strict legal sense. Such designation must, however, be sufficiently precise to allow the relevant part of the building to be attributed to the sphere of responsibility of either a specific unit owner or the condominium association.
In the case under consideration, the claimant formulated the relief sought such that the defendant was to be ordered to “refrain from all interference with (his) ownership rights…, namely by the penetration of moisture into the unit in question, such moisture originating in the basement premises at address XY…”. It may be concluded that the claimant complied with the above requirements both as regards the identification of the “real property” from which the emission originated (the basement premises at address XY) and as regards the specification of the obligation to refrain from precisely defined interference (the penetration of moisture). Where the action is framed as a claim seeking an order to desist from interference, the claimant is not required to propose (nor is the defendant ordered to implement) specific remedial measures; the choice of appropriate measures is left to the defendant.