Good Morals Cannot Create Property Rights: A Key Ruling by the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic
The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, case no. 4Cdo/111/2024, dated 21 August 2025, carries an important message for anyone considering court proceedings to recover real property based on moral arguments alone. The court was unambiguous: good morals are not a title for acquiring ownership.
The case concerned real property that two plaintiffs donated in 1992 to the legal predecessor of the defendant. Following her death, the property passed to the defendant by inheritance. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's conduct toward them was sufficiently unethical to warrant the return of the property, grounding their claim in Section 3(1) of the Civil Code — the principle of good morals.
The courts of first and second instance dismissed the action. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on points of law as well, and in doing so set out several significant doctrinal conclusions. The plaintiffs sought to rely on the institution of gift revocation under Section 630 of the Civil Code, which allows a donor to demand the return of a gift if the recipient grossly violates good morals toward the donor or members of the donor's family.
The Supreme Court firmly confirmed that this obligation is strictly personal and does not pass to the heirs of the recipient. The relationship between donor and recipient is personal in nature — and when the recipient dies, the right to reclaim the gift does not automatically arise against the recipient's heirs under Section 630. The heir's conduct does not in itself create a statutory claim for the return of the gift where the heir acquired the property by lawful means — namely, by inheritance.
Slovak law strictly observes the principle of numerus clausus — a closed list of ways in which ownership can be acquired. Under Section 132(1) of the Civil Code, ownership may be acquired by contract, by inheritance, by a decision of a public authority, or on the basis of other facts established by law. Outside these statutory titles, ownership simply does not arise. A court cannot constitute a property right merely because it considers such an outcome morally appropriate — to do so would be an impermissible interference with the principle of legal certainty and the protection of acquired rights.
This judgment has practical implications for anyone considering litigation to recover property based on moral arguments without support from a specific statutory title. Good morals are not a cause of action for acquiring ownership. If you donated real property and the recipient's heir treats you poorly, Section 630 will not assist you against that heir — the obligation to return a gift is personal and does not pass by inheritance. If you wish to protect the future return of property, address it contractually and in advance — for example, by establishing an easement, including a condition in the donation agreement, or by making a will. The donor's verbal intention to reclaim the property carries no legal weight.
