Lease, sub-lease or Pacht?
Published:
When searching for a new home or business premises, you will most frequently encounter the term "lease" (nájem). However, the Czech Civil Code distinguishes between several different types of contractual relationships that may seem identical at first glance but have completely different rules from a legal perspective. The difference between a lease, a sublease, and a pacht (usufructuary lease) is not just in the name – it determines how strong your rights are and how easily you can be evicted.
## Lease: Basic Housing Security
A lease agreement is a relationship directly between the property owner (lessor) and the person living in it (lessee). In Czech law, the lessee is considered the "weaker party," which provides them with a high degree of protection. For example, the lessor cannot forbid you from registering your permanent residence, having visitors, or keeping a pet (unless it causes unreasonable distress). Termination of an apartment lease is strictly regulated by law, and the owner can only give notice for reasons stipulated by statute. Simply said - The law has upper hand - if you have in contract something which is not according the law, it is void.
## Sublease: Second-hand Lease
A sublease arises when you rent an apartment not from the owner, but from someone who is a lessee there themselves. Three parties figure in this relationship: the owner, the lessee, and the sublessee. The key rule is that the sublessee only has as many rights as the lessee can (and is permitted to) assign to them. If the lease agreement between the owner and the lessee ends, your sublease automatically ends as well, regardless of what is written in your contract.
### 1. When the lessee lives in the apartment themselves
If you are renting, for example, a room in an apartment where the lessee themselves permanently resides, the situation is simpler and more complex at the same time. Simpler in that your contractual counterparty is always present for potential issues; more complex in that you are likewise under greater supervision. The lessee does not need the owner's consent to enter into a sublease agreement unless it is explicitly required in their lease agreement—however, this is not your concern, as generally they do not need it, and for instance, the Ministry of the Interior (MOI) should not even require the owner's consent. (Assuming they are legally erudite enough...)
### 2. When the lessee does not live in the apartment
If the lessee grants you the use of the entire apartment and does not live in it themselves, **they must have the written consent of the owner**. If they do not have such consent, they are committing a gross breach of their obligations, which can lead to termination for both them and you. In this regime, the sublessee is protected much less than a classic lessee—for example, statutory protection against termination without cause does not apply here if the parties so agree. If it is a true sublease, then this situation is actually the worst for you as a sublessee because, in this case, what is written in the contract applies—so, unreasonable contractual penalties? (20,000 CZK for an unannounced visit?) - here it passes - freedom of contract. A pet in the apartment without permission for 1,000 CZK per day? No problem... On the other hand, you can have a contract that does not contain these extremes and might even be advantageous for you! An indefinite contract with a flat rate for all utilities? Great, it works here! Prohibiting the lessee from entering the apartment even in case of an emergency? It could be... Simply put—what is in the contract applies!
## Simulated Legal Acts: "Family" Loopholes
In practice, we occasionally encounter attempts to bypass the strong statutory protection of the lessee. A typical example is a situation where a property owner leases the apartment to their partner, who subsequently "subleases" it to the actual client. The goal is to create a sublease relationship from which it is much easier to evict someone. For example, utilizing the principle that a sublease ends simultaneously with the lease. In such a case, if they want to terminate your contract, they terminate the lease agreement by mutual consent, perhaps as of tomorrow. And you move out. Done. However, courts view such constructions as so-called simulated legal acts. That is, the entire construction was created solely to curtail the rights of the lessee. If it is obvious that the purpose was only to deprive the user of the apartment of their statutory rights, such a relationship will be viewed as a standard lease with all the consequences for the owner.
## Sublease Companies and the Path to: What is a Pacht?
A specific phenomenon of modern times is companies that lease dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of apartments from owners for the purpose of further "re-leasing" (subleasing) them to end clients. They promise the owner guaranteed rent and a worry-free experience. Here, however, we reach the edge between a lease and a pacht. Or rather, beyond the edge.
While a lease (nájem) serves for the **use** of a thing (I live in the apartment), a pacht (Latin: *usufructus*) serves for **use and enjoyment**—that is, for taking the fruits and benefits of the given thing. If someone leases a property not to live in it, but to operate it as a business and generate profit from it, such a relationship exhibits the characteristics of a pacht. In the context of urban housing, pacht is beginning to be discussed specifically in connection with short-term rentals and professional management firms. The boundary between when it is a lease of an apartment for housing purposes and when it is a pacht of premises for business purposes has been a subject of expert discussion in recent years. This is a very similar situation to the previous point, just slightly different. Parties usually named the contracts as lease agreements and subsequently sublease agreements. It was not a simulated legal act—there is a completely different legal relationship here. Pacht. They were therefore concluding pacht agreements according to their content. And thus the next in line—for those actually living there, they were not subleases—but what—sub-pachts? This was a question for a long time to which no one knew the answer, and it caused truly significant problems.
A recently issued instruction from two ministries—Justice and Regional Development—sheds more light on this issue and clarifies how to correctly classify these relationships, especially with regard to the protection of end users. This is a ministerial opinion dated January 14, 2026, available here . In short, it states that in this situation, where a company leases an apartment for the purpose of further subleasing it—i.e., solely for profit—the next relationship in the sequence (with the person living in the apartment) is a lease relationship—meaning the person previously referred to as a sublessee has all the rights and protection according to the Lease section of the Civil Code!