Nejvyšší soud Brnó, usnesení ze dne 30/11/2011 23 Cdo 4363/2010 Eiffage Construction Česká republika s.r.o. and ALTMARK, s.r.o., Alpine Bau GmbH
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2010:23.CDO.4363.2010.1
Date: 2010-11-30
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82010CZ1130(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The Městský soud of Prague (CZ), before which an action for payment had been brought against the defendant, an Austrian company, admitted a co-defendant as a party to the proceedings based on the plaintiff’s claim that the co-defendant was a guarantor of the defendant's obligation. On appeal, the Vrchní soud of Prague (CZ) confirmed the decision of the first instance court. The co-defendant filed another appeal, claiming that it did not guarantee the obligation of the defendant and, as it was an Austrian legal person, the Czech courts had no jurisdiction.
The Nejvyšší soud (CZ) states that the lower courts’ decisions are procedural decisions that determine who the parties are, but does not deal with substantive issues, including the issue of whether guarantor's obligation exists. The court cites Article 6(1) Brussels I Regulation, stating that Article 6 represents a special rule on jurisdiction, constituting an exception to the general principle of jurisdiction of the state where the defendant is domiciled, and giving the plaintiff an opportunity to file a claim before a court other than that which would have jurisdiction if the action against the defendant were to be filed individually. In this case, the plaintiff has made a claim against the defendant, the debtor, and during the proceedings, proposed joining the co-defendant, the guarantor of the defendant’s obligation. In this context, the court refers to the ECJ decision of 17.07.2006 C-103/05 Reisch Montage, in which, as in the present case, the courts of a Member State had jurisdiction over an action filed against a defendant domiciled in one Member State and against another defendant domiciled in another Member State. A national court cannot decline jurisdiction in proceedings against a guarantor based on the fact that the guarantor is domiciled in a Member State other than the state of the forum and other than the state where the debtor is domiciled.