Case brief

The plaintiff, Mr. L. P., wanted that the Court confirms he is one of the joint owners who owes the
pond close to Rakovník.

This pond has a rich history which unfortunately complicates the whole situation. First it was
built but then at the time when the plaintiff´s ancestors acquired the ownership it was decided
there will not be the pond any more. Despite that decision, the pond was later rebuild. But the
question is whether the pond can be an object. And if so, does it mean the plaintiff owes the pond
land or only a land where there is a real estate on it?

The District Court decided he owes the land only, because at the time when his ancestors acquired
the ownership there was not any pond. That means he also has the obligation connected to fact that
there is a real estate on it that he does not owe.

The Court of Appeals upholded the decision of first instance court. It added that the joint
ownership can be decided only about things that are allowed to be the object of the civil law.

The High Court mentioned that the recent leading of process was not correct. It recommended certain
ways how to clarify the situation. It mainly referred to the cadastral law where the courts could
have found the description if the pond is allowed to be the object of civil law. It also noted that
the lower courts had not seen certain laws and mainly because of this it remanded it back.