The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic upheld the hotel's right not to accept Russians who support the annexation of Crimea
As reported by Vinegret.cz, in the spring of 2014, the hotel owner Tomas Krcmar, of Ukrainian origin, refused accommodation to a group of 49 Russian athletes. He then posted a notice at the entrance and on the hotel's website: "From March 24, 2014, we do not accommodate citizens of the Russian Federation. Reason: the annexation of Crimea. We apologize to all worthy guests from Russia."
Later, under pressure from the public and the media, the owner softened the check-in conditions, allowing those Russians who would condemn the Kremlin's aggressive policy in writing to stay in the rooms. Six months later, the Czech Trade Inspection fined the hotel 50,000 crowns with the wording "for illegal discrimination of consumers on the basis of nationality."
The entrepreneur appealed to the Regional Court in Ostrava. It deemed the fine too high and reduced it to 5,000 crowns. However, Krcmar was not satisfied with this outcome and decided to fight further, seeking full acquittal. Ultimately, the higher Constitutional Court sided with the hotelier and canceled the fine.
According to the court's verdict, entrepreneurs have the right to select clients according to their own criteria. Moreover, if a consumer is denied a service for a reason not related to their gender, race, religious affiliation, or physical characteristics, this cannot be considered discrimination.
"It is obvious that the plaintiff's action was an emotional reaction. He wanted to express his political views. Entrepreneurs are not obliged to be politically neutral, and during work they have the right to express their position in a lawful and correct manner," said Judge Vojtech Simicek.
He noted that Russia annexed Crimea in clear violation of international law, and the Czech government officially condemned this act of aggression, calling it an annexation. Thus, the hotel's actions were consistent with both Czech foreign policy and the position of international organizations.
"We also took into account the fact that the plaintiff made the announcement on the hotel's website. Each client could decide in advance whether these conditions suited them or not. Moreover, this is a hotel in the city center, where there are dozens of other hotels. If clients were not satisfied with the stated conditions, they had the opportunity to stay elsewhere without loss," added Judge Simicek.