Important decision
In practice, the delivery of a letter is a frequent source of legal disputes, especially when it comes to official or judicial documents that trigger the time limits for filing an appeal or enforcing a decision. Failure to receive a document does not necessarily mean that it has not been served. Both the Czech Judiciary and the Supreme Administrative Court confirm that letters dropped into a mailbox are deemed to have been delivered even without actual receipt by the addressee. This applies even in situations where the addressee claims that the document has disappeared from the mailbox. This has significant legal consequences for the addressee.
In Czech law, a letter is deemed to have been delivered once it has been delivered into the addressee’s sphere of possession – typically by dropping it into the addressee’s mailbox. This legal institution is referred to as the fiction of service. According to the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, even if the addressee does not physically receive the document or even if someone steals it from the mailbox, a letter sent by a court or authority and dropped into the mailbox is considered to have been delivered.
The legal fiction of service has a very specific purpose: to ensure that the legal relations between the parties to proceedings are stable and predictable. Without this rule, it would be easy to make the excuse that the addressee had never seen the decision or notice – which could paralyse administrative and judicial proceedings. The fiction of service thus protects both the sender (e.g. the State or the other party to the dispute) and the public interest in the efficient functioning of the processes.
This principle applies in particular to:
The courts have long emphasised that the responsibility for controlling the mailbox lies with the addressee. If someone does not check the mailbox, is away for a long period of time or relies on the “what I do not see does not exist” approach, they expose themselves to significant legal risk.
It is this approach that is intended to prevent obstruction and ensure that proceedings cannot drag on indefinitely. At the same time, however, it places a higher standard of care on the addressees.
An available attorney points out: constructive service applies even if you were on vacation, in the hospital, or away from home for an extended period of time.
Case law is quite strict and uniform on the issue of service. Both the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court have repeatedly confirmed that dropping a document into a mailbox constitutes full service if the mailbox was designed to receive mail and marked with the name or number of the apartment.
The courts do not address whether the mailbox was lockable, whether it was in a common area, or whether anyone else had access to it.
According to the case law, it is the addressee who is responsible for the security of his mailbox, bears the risk of its poor technical condition and must take into account the usual risks (loss, discarding, theft).
The moment of delivery is also important. As soon as the letter is dropped in the mailbox, the time limits begin to run immediately. This can have very harsh consequences – for example, missing the deadline to appeal or oppose a payment order.
Or are you already dealing with the consequences because you found out about the document late? We will assess the validity of the service, suggest further legal action, prepare a submission to the court or authority and help minimise the damage. Book an online legal consultation today.
To illustrate how the fiction of delivery works in real practice, let’s take a look at a specific case of a man reported by the Czech Justice server. This case is a good example of why you cannot afford to downplay the delivery of parcels, even if you believe that you have never seen or opened the letter.
The man had 40 cassation complaints filed with the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). In one of them, he found himself in a situation where the court sent him a notice asking him to provide proof of payment of the court fee and a power of attorney for the complaint. This letter was served on him by dropping it in his letterbox on 4 July 2025. If the letter had not been deemed to have been served, the man would have had the opportunity to respond to the notice and avoid the formal consequences.
However, the man claimed that he never received the parcel. He said someone must have stolen it from his mailbox. The mailbox was located in a common area of the apartment building and the front door did not close, so he said anyone could have removed the letter before the man could retrieve it. He therefore challenged the summons and proposed, among other things, to conduct an “evidentiary inspection” of the mailbox to establish that the mail could be easily removed from it without a key or damage. Another of his contentions was the possibility that the delivery person had made a mistake and had thrown in a letter addressed to another person. To support his version, he also brought a video recording to the court to clarify that the mailbox was inaccessible as he described.
Nevertheless, the SAC rejected his objections as irrelevant. According to the court, a parcel is validly delivered at the moment it is dropped into the mailbox, regardless of whether the addressee actually received it, read it, or was able to read it before it was removed by someone else. According to the Court, the arguments about the mailbox being freely accessible, the door not functioning or the possible confusion of the document are not legally relevant and do not affect the fiction of service. The SJC also held that the theft of a late or lost parcel, as well as its non-collection, is not sufficient to invalidate or disapply the fiction of service.
In practical terms, this means that even if service appears unfair or imperfect, the legal system emphasises objective criteria – service has been effected when a record of the deposit in the mailbox exists. It should be added that the man’s request for review was therefore subsequently denied by the court, and the notice to respond to the pleadings continued to run.
This case is a telling illustration of the importance of whenever a court, agency or other institution serves you with a legally significant document through the letterbox:
And if you’re not sure what service means to you legally, we recommend consulting an attorney who knows the latest case law and can advise you on next steps.
Tip: Did you know that there are several types of addresses? The correct address plays a very important role in legal relations and everyday communication. Find out which addresses you have.
Yes, but only in exceptional cases. It is possible to defend against the fiction of service, but the burden of proof is on the addressee. It is not enough to claim that “I did not receive the letter”.
A successful defence may arise, for example, where:
On the other hand, you will not succeed if you claim:
This is where early consultation with an attorney often pays off. He or she will be able to assess whether it makes sense to defend against service or whether it is better to focus on other procedural options (e.g. waiving the delay).
Although service of a letter is a formal act, its consequences can be significant. The good news is that most problems can be prevented.
In particular, we recommend that you check your letterbox regularly, keep it clearly marked, provide basic security, report changes of address to all authorities and courts, and consider setting up a data mailbox where delivery is clearer and more traceable.
For entrepreneurs and businesses, caution is even more important – missing a deadline can mean not only a lost dispute, but also financial loss or execution.
The delivery of a letter is crucial in law because it is followed by deadlines for filing appeals, oppositions or other procedural acts, and it is not decisive whether the addressee actually read or received the letter. Once a document is delivered into the so-called sphere of the addressee’s disposition, typically by dropping it into a post box, it is deemed to have been served on the basis of the fiction of service, which has long been confirmed by the case law of the courts. The responsibility for controlling and securing the letterbox lies with the addressee, and common risks such as theft of the letter, inaccessible common areas or temporary absence do not affect the validity of the service. Once service has been effected, the statutory time limits begin to run immediately, and failure to do so can have serious consequences, including the rejection of appeals or other remedies. The defence against the fiction of service is only exceptionally possible and requires strong and concrete evidence that the letter could not objectively have been in the possession of the addressee, and the mere allegation that the addressee has not seen the letter is not sufficient. The case described by the Supreme Administrative Court clearly shows that the courts place emphasis on the objective course of service, not on the subjective perception of the addressee, and therefore it is always crucial not to underestimate the service and to consult a lawyer in case of doubt.
Yes, if it was dropped in your mailbox.
As a rule, theft does not prevent valid delivery.
No. Security is the responsibility of the addressee.
Usually at the moment of delivery, i.e. by dropping it in the mailbox.
Yes, there are ways to address the situation – but you need to act quickly.
Our team of experienced attorneys will help you solve any legal issue. Within 24 hours we’ll evaluate your situation and suggest a step-by-step solution, including all costs. The price for this proposal is only CZK 690, and this is refunded to you when you order service from us.
In person and online. Just choose the appropriate service or opt for an independent consultation when you are unsure.
