Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2016-05-20; 30 Nd 384/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2016:30.ND.384.2015.1
Date: 2016-05-20
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82016CZ0520(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a claim of EUR 79,000 and another of CZK 3_790_116.50 based on a film production contract.
The plaintiff made a motion, in ongoing proceedings, to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) to determine which Czech court had the local jurisdiction to rule a decision in this case, as Supreme Court is supposed to do under § 11(3) of the OSŘ (1). According to the plaintiff, the parties agreed, in the contract, that the Czech courts shall have jurisdiction over any disputes arising from their contract and also that Czech law is applicable. The specific local jurisdiction of a specific Czech court had not been set out in the contract, so there was no statutory criterion to determine the local jurisdiction other than the specific one which the Supreme Court appoints as having jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court applied the New Brussels I Regulation (2). According to Article 25(1) of the New Brussels I Regulation, the courts of a Member State have jurisdiction if all parties of a contract agree that a court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship. The agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either: (a) in writing or evidenced in writing; (b) in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or (c) in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned.
In the copy of the contract provided to the Supreme Court by the plaintiff, the court discovered that the contract between the parties did confer jurisdiction to the Czech courts in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation. As there is no exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24 of the Regulation in this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the Czech courts had international jurisdiction.
The defendant is a legal person residing in Slovakia and does not have a branch office or assets in the Czech Republic. The Supreme Court therefore applied its role in national law and prescribed which court should decide the case if none of the criteria set out in the OSŘ is applicable to determine the local jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decided that the case should be decided by the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 2 (“District Court Prague 2”) as it is under this jurisdiction that the plaintiff has its place of residence and the defendant does not reside in the Czech Republic, therefore jurisdiction cannot be based on the general rule of place of residence of the defendant.
(1) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).
(2) 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.