Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2020-07-29; 29 Cdo 416/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2020:29.CDO.416.2019.1
Date: 2020-07-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82020CZ0729(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
An insolvency administrator of a company called UNIBON domiciled in Czechia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Krajský soud v Olomouci (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for a payment order based on a promissory note by which was secured a credit agreement between UNIBON and company domiciled in Slovakia (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’). The request for a payment order was directed against defendant 1 and two other natural persons (defendant 2 and defendant 3).
The Court of First Instance issued the payment order, but later accepted the objection of the defendants, annulled the payment order, and terminated the proceedings. The defendants pointed to the jurisdiction clause laid down in the credit agreement in favour of the Slovakian courts and claimed that the Czech courts lacked jurisdiction. This objection was granted by the Court of First Instance by reference to Article 5(1) and Article 25(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and Articles 103 and 104 of the o.s.ř. (2).
The plaintiff appealed to the Vrchní soud v Olomouci (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging that the prorogation clause laid down in the credit agreement cannot be automatically applied to the subsequent case based on the promissory note. The Court of Appeal accepted this opinion and changed the first instance conclusion: the proceedings shall continue, and the payment order is not annulled.
The defendants filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, who held that the Court of Appeal had not assessed all relevant circumstances of the jurisdiction question and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for a further hearing. However, the Court of Appeal confirmed its previous decision without any change and concluded that the Czech courts have jurisdiction over the case.
The defendants filled new cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, who recalled that the Court of Appeal has not followed previous recommendations to assess all relevant questions concerning the jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court confirmed that, generally, the obligation arising from a promissory note is a unique obligation, separated from the original obligation (such as credit agreement) based on which the promissory note was issued. However, in the light of the current case, it cannot be neglected that the issuance and further application of promissory notes were specified directly in the credit agreement together with the reference to the provisions where both parties agreed to the content of the agreement. Generally, the prorogation clause must be always interpreted according to (a) the intention of the parties and (b) the specific wording of the clause. Without a thorough assessment of these two elements, the jurisdiction question cannot be satisfactorily resolved. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal omitted careful consideration of the specific situation and concrete promissory note and credit agreement in question and applied only the general rule.
Therefore, the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to that court again and added that the legal opinion of the Supreme Court must be for the lower court obligatory.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).