Czech Republic
Misclassification - self-employment in the IT sector (case law)
Impact date: 16 March 2026 (date of judgement); relevant immediately as judicial guidance. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld a labour-inspection finding that IT programmers engaged as self-employed contractors were in fact performing dependent work. It stressed a material overall assessment of the relationship, including instructions and control, integration with employee teams, full-time-like workload, limited ability to refuse tasks, economic dependence and lack of genuine business autonomy. The contract wording and the contractors’ preference for self-employment were not decisive.
Employer implications/action needed Employers engaging freelancers, particularly in the IT sector, should assess whether the arrangement is genuinely one of self‑employment (B2B) by examining factors such as the individual’s freedom to refuse work, rights of substitution, maintenance of an independent client base, exposure to business risk, ownership of deliverables, and the extent to which the relationship is insulated from employee‑like management and control.
Employer risk Misclassification of status may lead to labour-inspection fines, worker claims and related payroll, tax and social-security exposure.
Unified monthly employer reporting
Impact date: 1 April 2026. The first regular monthly report for April 2026 was due between 1 and 20 May 2026. Back-reporting for January to March 2026 is due by 30 June 2026. The unified monthly employer reporting system (JMHZ) moved into live operation from 1 April 2026. Employers must submit a monthly electronic report to the Czech Social Security Administration, consolidating data previously reported through several separate channels. The report is submitted monthly from the first to the 20th day of the following month. Reports for January to March 2026 must also be filed retrospectively by 30 June 2026, separately for each month.
Employer implications/action needed Employers must ensure that payroll and HR systems are technically ready for JMHZ, that the relevant employee and employment identifiers are available, and that payroll providers have a clear responsibility matrix for monthly submissions, corrections and rejection protocols. Internal cut-off dates for payroll data should be reviewed because the filing deadline is short.
Employer risk Defective or late filings may be rejected or may trigger correction requests and administrative exposure. Payroll data errors may also affect social security, tax and statistical reporting downstream.
Employment of foreign nationals without work authorization (case law)
Impact date: 14 May 2026 (date of judgement); relevant immediately as judicial guidance. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the labor inspectorate’s decision that the employer had enabled illegal work by employing a Ukrainian national without the required work authorization. The court emphasized that an employer must actively verify not only the foreign national’s residence authorization, but also their authorization to perform work. The foreign national’s own statement, or an incorrect assessment of a type “D” visa, is not sufficient. The court also considered it relevant that even short-term employment of a single foreign national without a work permit remains unlawful and socially harmful, as it interferes with the protection of the labor market and fair competition between employers.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should implement and document, before a foreign national starts work, a check as to whether the specific type of residence authorization also actually includes the right to work in the Czech Republic. The check should not rely solely on a copy of the passport or on the foreign national’s declaration, but should include verification of the type of visa, temporary protection, employee card, work permit, or any applicable exemption from the requirement to hold a work authorization.
Employer risk Employing a foreign national without a work authorization may result in a fine for enabling illegal work.
Draft Labour Code amendment on pay transparency
Impact date: Not yet adopted. The transposition deadline under EU law is 7 June 2026. According to the Ministry, core national provisions are expected to apply from 1 January 2027; pay-gap reporting should start from 2028 for employers with 150+ employees and from 2031 for employers with 100–149 employees. The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs has presented a draft amendment implementing Directive (EU) 2023/970 on pay transparency. The draft follows a “minimalist transposition” approach, but would still introduce important employer obligations, including a ban on asking candidates about their pay history, an obligation to disclose the offered pay range before recruitment, and obligations to monitor and report gender pay differences for larger employers.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should start mapping pay structures, salary bands, job architecture and recruitment templates. Larger employers should test whether they can produce reliable gender pay-gap data by comparable categories of employees and should identify unexplained pay differences early.
Employer risk The proposal is not yet law, but employers with larger workforces may need significant preparation time for data quality, pay transparency, internal communication and possible remedial measures.
Draft Act on Platform Work and related amendments
Impact date: Not yet adopted. The EU transposition deadline for the Platform Work Directive is 2 December 2026. The Czech proposal was circulated in spring 2026, with consultation activity in April 2026. A draft Act on platform work has been circulated as part of the Czech transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/2831. The proposal is at an early legislative stage / consultation stage. It is expected to introduce a rebuttable presumption of an employment relationship where platform work shows features of dependent work, as well as transparency obligations concerning automated allocation of work, evaluation and algorithmic management.
Employer implications/action needed Digital labour platforms should review worker-classification models, contractual documentation, onboarding information, algorithmic management processes and data-protection notices. Other employers using automated systems to allocate, monitor or evaluate work should also monitor the draft, as some related obligations may have a broader practical impact.
Employer risk The proposal is still pending, but platform operators and businesses relying on contractor models may face reclassification, information and compliance risks once the rules are adopted.
Contact
© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.