In its judgment file No. 25 Cdo 860/2025, the Supreme Court ruled on an appeal filed by a former teacher in proceedings concerning the protection of personality rights against Seznam Zprávy, a.s. The Court dismissed the appeal as inadmissible and, at the same time, discontinued the proceedings in the part directed against the decision of the court of first instance.
The dispute concerned an article published in April 2022 on the Seznam Zprávy news portal. The article reported that the teacher (the claimant), during Czech language classes, had conveyed disinformation to her students. The students secretly recorded part of the lesson and provided the recording to the school management and the media. The article published by Seznam included the teacher’s nameand photograph, identification of the school, and excerpts from the audio recording of the lesson.
The claimant sought the removal of her first name, surname, and likeness from the article, the publication of an apology, and monetary compensation in the amount of CZK 1,000,000. She argued that the publication of her personal data and the audio recording constituted an unlawful interference with her personality rights. The lower courts dismissed her claim.
The Supreme Court upheld the conclusions of the lower courts, finding that the case concerned reported on a matter of public interest. According to the Court, a teacher, in the performance of their professional duties, is subject to public scrutiny and, to that extent, may be regarded as a person of public interest—particularly with regard to the content of their teaching and the dissemination of information to students on significant societal issues. In such circumstances, the teacher must tolerate a higher degree of public scrutiny and criticism, provided that such criticism relates to their professional activities.
The Supreme Court further held that the publication of the claimant’s name, likeness, and the audio recording was covered by the so-called “journalistic licence” under the Civil Code. These materials were used for the purpose of informing the public about the manner of instruction and were not presented in a degrading or disproportionate manner.
The Court also reiterated that, in cases involving a conflict between the right to protection of personality and freedom of expression, courts must always assess the specific circumstances of the case. In the present matter, the media criticism related exclusively to the claimant’s professional conduct in the classroom, was based on a truthful factual foundation substantiated by the audio recording, and pursued the legitimate aim of informing the public on a matter of public interest. Under these circumstances, both the publication of the criticism and the disclosure of identifying information concerning a person of public interest were deemed lawful.