Practical insights, legal updates and analysis from practice — by JUDr. Zuzana Vlková, PhD.
Neighbour disputes are among the most common legal conflicts, and where your rights are infringed the law provides three levels of protection. The first is self-help, which is an exclusively defensive act to ward off an imminent unlawful interference, subject to strict proportionality. The second alternative is swift protection provided by the municipality, which effectively addresses disturbances of the existing peaceful state of affairs (for example, a blocked gate or excessive noise); the municipality does not examine ownership itself, but protects the factual state. The last resort is judicial protection, pursued through specific actions — for example, an action against nuisance emissions (noise, odours, shading), an action to determine a land boundary, or an action for the removal of an unauthorised structure.
This article analyses the decision-making rules among fractional co-owners when leasing their common property. It explains the difference between "ordinary management" and an "important change to the common thing" on the basis of Slovak case law. The author highlights a fundamental and frequently repeated mistake in practice: although a majority co-owner (e.g. holding a 60% share) may lawfully outvote the minority, they may not act entirely on their own. If the minority co-owner is not invited to the decision-making in advance and given the opportunity to comment, the signing of a lease agreement or a notice of termination may be held absolutely invalid.
This article explains the situations in which the courts, relying on case law, give priority to the social and human side of a case over the property interests of the claimant. Using practical examples (a cancer patient living in a family house, or the care of a blind child), it illustrates when a court will usually dismiss an action for the dissolution and settlement of fractional co-ownership. At the same time, it offers an important piece of legal advice: a dismissal "now" does not mean "forever", and where there is a substantial change in life circumstances, the action can successfully be brought again.
This article provides a guide to ending dysfunctional fractional co-ownership of property in a legally sound way. It analyses in detail the ideal scenario — an out-of-court agreement of all parties involved — while highlighting the formal errors that could render it invalid. For cases where agreement fails, the text clearly explains the three-step algorithm of court proceedings (from physical division through to sale) and uses practical examples to illustrate the criteria and limits the courts apply in practice.
Do you want to sell a share in land, but do not want to lose two months waiting for the other co-owners to respond? The solution is a formal agreement waiving the statutory pre-emption right, which can unblock the whole process immediately.
Although the law starts from the principle of equal shares (50/50) when settling the community property of spouses (bezpodielové spoluvlastníctvo manželov, "BSM"), in exceptional circumstances the courts allow a disparity of shares. A higher income or better education of one spouse is not enough on its own; unequal division requires extraordinary individual merit — or, conversely, long-term voluntary passivity and disinterest in both family and work. Departures from parity tend to be modest (e.g. 55/45), and the court does not assess fault for the breakdown of the marriage at all. In an out-of-court settlement with unequal shares, care must be taken with creditors and the risk of the agreement being set aside as a fraudulent transfer.
This article explains in detail how the statutory pre-emption right operates on the transfer of a co-ownership share in land in Slovakia. It highlights important differences between Slovak and Czech case law (particularly regarding gifts) and describes, step by step, the process of making an official written offer. It also defines the three legal claims that arise for co-owners where their rights are breached.
Divorce creates the need to settle the community property of spouses (bezpodielové spoluvlastníctvo manželov, 'BSM'), particularly where there is a jointly owned flat with a mortgage. Settlement is subject to a three-year time limit running from the date the divorce judgment becomes final; once it expires, the flat automatically passes into fractional co-ownership (50/50) and the debt remains joint. Releasing one of the ex-spouses from the mortgage requires, first of all, the bank's approval based on a creditworthiness assessment, and only then the signing of a BSM settlement agreement.
Owning property with other people often runs into the situation where one of the co-owners starts using the property at the expense of the others. This article analyses when the disadvantaged co-owner acquires a claim to financial compensation, and why the extent of use is measured not merely in square metres but above all by the economic value of the property. You will learn how arbitrary conduct or being outvoted by the majority affects your rights, and why more recent judicial practice protects your money with the longer, 3-year limitation period. In closing, the author explains why an expert's help is crucial when proving excessive use.
The Slovak legal order does not recognise the institution of a prenuptial agreement. Any pre-marriage arrangements, agreements on future contracts or suspensive conditions aimed at regulating the community property of spouses (bezpodielové spoluvlastníctvo manželov, "BSM") after the wedding are regarded by the courts as absolutely invalid for circumventing the law. The only way to modify the property relations (to narrow or extend BSM, or to postpone its creation) is to conclude an agreement in the form of a notarial deed after the marriage has been entered into. A practical solution, however, is precise pre-marriage preparation of a draft agreement, which is signed immediately after the wedding.
Learn what kinds of disputes can arise in connection with an inheritance – from disputes over the validity of a will, through disputes over the extent of the estate, to an action by the rightful heir after the proceedings have ended.
Learn how compensation for an easement is determined — in an agreement, in a court decision and by law. A practical explanation from a lawyer.
Find out under what conditions an heir is unworthy to inherit, what disputes may arise in connection with this, and how they are resolved.
Find out how the notary proceeds where the heirs disagree over what belongs to the deceased's assets or debts, when the notary decides the matter directly, and when the heirs must resolve the dispute by a separate court action.
Find out which formal and substantive defects render a disinheritance invalid and how this dispute between heirs is resolved.
