The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs has published a draft of a new law regulating work via digital platforms. The draft aims to transpose Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on improving working conditions in platform work into Czech law. The bill is now entering the consultation process, with proposed entry into force on 1 December 2026, or 1 January 2027 for record-keeping obligations.

In addition, the draft Act introduces fundamental changes to certain aspects of labour law that will affect all employers, not just digital platforms. In particular, these will include newly defined characteristics of dependent work under Section 2 of the Labour Code, a change to the definition of illegal work, and new obligations for employers to identify and assess risks associated with the use of automated systems.

Digital platforms

The main aim of the new legislation is to strengthen worker protection, clarify the functioning of algorithmic management, and facilitate the assessment of whether an activity constitutes self-employment or dependent work.

According to the draft Act, a platform is an entity providing a service which:

• is provided wholly or partly remotely by electronic means (for example, via a web or mobile application),
• is provided at the request of the end user,
• includes, as a key element, the organisation of work performed by natural persons for remuneration, regardless of whether the work takes place online or in person,
• uses automated systems in the organisation, management or evaluation of work.

It is therefore clear that the term ‘platform’ will not be limited to companies in the taxi or delivery sectors, but will encompass a wide variety of online services with automated management. The Act will apply to all platforms that organise the performance of work in the Czech Republic, regardless of their place of formal establishment.

Rebuttable presumption of dependent work by a platform worker

Platform work is performed by a natural person regardless of the formal nature of the contract or its designation by the platform or the worker. The draft law introduces a rebuttable presumption of an employment relationship. This means that if the characteristics of dependent work under Section 2(1) of the Labour Code are met, the platform worker is deemed to be an employee of the platform (or intermediary), unless the platform proves that at least one of the characteristics of dependent work is not met. It will thus be significantly easier for supervisory authorities to prove that a platform worker is performing dependent work, i.e. is an employee, and if the contractual arrangements do not correspond to this, they may sanction the platform for operating a ‘Schwarz system’.

Regulation of automated systems and personal data protection

The draft bill also introduces regulation of automated monitoring and decision-making systems that influence, for example, the recruitment of workers, their availability, the assignment of tasks, the calculation of remuneration, working hours, access to training, or decisions regarding the suspension or cancellation of a user account. These systems must not process certain types of personal data, such as workers’ private communications, data collected at times when the worker is not performing work, or data used to infer racial or ethnic origin or other discriminatory characteristics. The platform will have to transparently inform workers what data it processes, for what reasons and in what manner. Automated systems must be subject to oversight by a natural person who will assess the impact of their decisions on working conditions and equal treatment.

Recording and other obligations of platforms

The platform will be required to provide, via the monthly statement of the employer, its identification details and confirmation that it is a platform (even platforms without employees will have to register in this way!). Furthermore, the platform will be required, upon request, to provide selected administrative authorities with information on the total number of platform workers, their breakdown by type of contractual relationship, and the average number of hours worked. The platform will be required to provide platform workers with an effective means of contacting and communicating with one another; the platform must not monitor this communication. Platforms will be required to establish an internal whistleblowing system, regardless of the number of employees.  Platforms that do not have their registered office or a branch in the Czech Republic will have to designate a contact person for the purposes of communicating with administrative authorities.

Penalties

The draft bill introduces new administrative offences relating in particular to the unlawful processing of personal data. For the most serious breaches, a penalty of up to EUR 20 million or 4 % of total annual turnover is proposed. Penalties may also be imposed if a platform fails to ensure compliance with the obligations of a data processor or fails to fulfil its duty to supervise automated systems.

Updates for all employers (not just platforms)

The amendment changes the definition of dependent work under Section 2 of the Labour Code. The characteristics of dependent work remain similar; the new provisions emphasise the distinction between the characteristics of dependent work and the conditions under which such work is performed, in line with developments in case law. The requirement for the work to be performed in person has been removed from the list of characteristics.

All employers will now be required to systematically identify and assess the risks of automated monitoring systems and automated decision-making systems, take preventive measures, regularly check their effectiveness, and inform employees accordingly.

The draft proposes amending the definition of illegal work so that the ‘Švarc system’ (disguised employment) will now be treated as undeclared work, carrying a lower penalty than that imposed for illegal work. Furthermore, only employers, and not the employees themselves, would be liable for the ‘Švarc system’. Illegal work will continue to include the illegal employment of foreign nationals and work carried out by minors in breach of regulations.

CURRENT CASE LAW OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT – EMPLOYMENT AND THE ‘ŠVARC’ SYSTEM IN PRACTICE

Work in the IT sector and the limits of contractual freedom

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) confirmed that even in highly specialised professions, such as programmers, the actual performance of work under a business registration number may fulfil the criteria for dependent work under Section 2(1) of the Labour Code. The mere fact that programmers were paid an hourly rate and recorded their time in the JIRA system is not automatically decisive. The key factors were economic dependence, working full-time exclusively for a single company, integration into joint teams with employees, and the inability to refuse an assignment except in situations where the company was in arrears with payment of their remuneration. The court emphasised that if the factual circumstances satisfy the defining characteristics of dependent work, mandatory provisions of labour law restrict the parties’ contractual freedom regardless of their intentions (7 Ads 52/2025).

Assessment of ‘ambiguous’ activities among platform couriers

In the context of digital platforms, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that although the activity of couriers is typically “ambiguous” and requires careful individual assessment, it may constitute illegal work within the meaning of Section 5(e)(1) of Act No. 435/2004 Coll., on Employment. In the case under consideration (Rohlík.cz), the court found that couriers acting as self-employed persons were in fact subject to the organisation of work by the platform, including sanctions for failure to comply with specified obligations. The performance of work on behalf of the platform, the obligation to perform the work in person, regularity and subordination clearly demonstrated that the criteria for dependent work were met, regardless of the formal wording of the commercial contracts (22 Ads 168/2025).

Place of work in hairdressing salons

When assessing disguised employment relationships involving hairdressers working in a shared salon, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that the place of work is not one of the defining characteristics of dependent work within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Labour Code, but is merely a condition for its performance arising from Section 2(2) of the Labour Code. If the administrative authorities demonstrate a relationship of subordination, and the personal and systematic performance of work in accordance with the employer’s instructions and on the employer’s behalf, illegal employment is facilitated even if the work is performed at another agreed location rather than at the employer’s formal place of business. What is decisive is a substantive assessment of the activity actually performed and the nature of the relationship, not which entity has a business premises formally registered at the given address in the Trade Register (2 Ads 15/2026).

…..

This material is for general information on current topics only, it is not advice. It does not take into account any special circumstances, financial situations or special requirements of the addressees. Recipients should therefore always seek appropriate professional services for the information provided. Notwithstanding the careful compilation of this material, bpv Braun Partners s.r.o. advokáti, its partners, associates or co-operating solicitors and tax advisers cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein and accepts no responsibility for acting or refraining from acting on the basis of the information contained in this material