It’s a widely known Rule that every consumer complaint shall be handled no later than 30 days from its exercise. This period is defined in Sec. 18 Subsec. 4 of the Act No. 250/2007 Coll. on protection of the consumer and amendment of the Act No. 372/1990 Coll. on contraventions as amended, and it stems from previous legislation. The sellers became acquainted to this period and they are aware that each complaint has to be handled within this set period, as pursuant to the above-mentioned provision. After the lapse of this period, the consumer is entitled to withdraw from the contract (and therefore to have the provided price returned), or alternatively a change of the product for a new one.

Up until now, the prevailing understanding of the pertinent provision, not only within the lay public, was that in the case where a lapse of the pertinent period occurred, justification of the claimed complaint was impertinent (that is, whether the product had defects, or more precisely whether the seller was liable for the defects) and above-mentioned rights of the consumer arose automatically. This issue was deliberated by the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic and in proceeding numbered 3Cdo/220/2017, a judgement was issued on 11.10.2018. In this judgement, the following questions were taken into consideration:

a/ „if the right of the consumer, who exercised a complaint for the removal of the defects, to withdraw from the contract arises the moment of the lapse of the 30 days period, in case of the indelible defects of the product”;

b/ „if a breach of the 30 days period for the handling of the complaint gives rise to the presumption of existence of the claimed defect, under which the court no longer examines the objective existence of the defect”.

The Conclusion of the Court with respect to the aforementioned questions is clear: „...the lapse of the 30 days period for the handling of the complaint pursuant to the Sec. 18 Subsec. 4 of the Act. No. 250/2007 Coll. shall not give rise to the presumption of the existence of the complained defect and the purchaser shall be entitled to claims arising from the liability for this defect only in case, the defect objectively exists.”. Afterwards the Court adds, that it is always necessary for the court to „...take into consideration the sole existence of the defect, by evaluation whether it be an individual case represents so called „complaint defect.“.

If the complained defect is not a defect or rather is a defect but for which the seller is not liable, the lapse of the 30 days period for the handling of the complaint will not give rise to the right of the consumer for the return of the provided price / change of the product and the seller is entitled to cancel this complaint. Naturally, this shall still be considered as a breach of the duties pursuant to Sec. 18 Subsec. 4 of the pertinent Act, nevertheless possible sanction for this breach shall be in different line – a fine imposed by the Slovak Trade Inspection as a control authority for adherence of the Act No. 250/2007 Coll. on protection of the consumer.

With respect to the principle of legal certainty and adherence to the judicial rulings, it may be expected that such opinion of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic will be adopted and applied by the general courts.