Nejvyšší soud; 2019-04-25; 27 Cdo 3482/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2019:27.CDO.3482.2017.1
Date: 2019-04-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82019CZ0425(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts over an allegation concerning a consumer contract, which was resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A natural person domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) entered into an investment contract with a bank domiciled in Denmark (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The plaintiff suffered a financial loss and filed an action before the Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) seeking damages.
The defendant raised an objection of the lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts citing the agreement conferring jurisdiction (as part of the contract) to the court in Copenhagen (Denmark). The Court of First Instance considered the plaintiff to be a consumer within meaning of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and, pursuant to its Article 18(1), held that the jurisdiction of the Czech courts is established on the basis of plaintiff’s domicile.
The Vrchní soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) confirmed the first instance conclusion.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that the plaintiff cannot be regarded as consumer, since the subject of the contract must be understood as specific commercial activity and the plaintiff must be regarded to be an economic operator. Although the plaintiff is a natural person, he worked in the financial sector and had long-term experience in investments. The defendant also asked the Supreme Court to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to provide an interpretation of Article 17 of the Brussels I Regulation (definition of ‘consumer contract’).
The Supreme Court pointed out that the interpretation of ‘consumer contracts’ was provided by the CJEU several times and the interpretation is clear. For instance, in Case C-464/01 (2) the CJEU held that ‘the rules of jurisdiction [over consumer contracts] are to be strictly interpreted, so that they cannot give rise to an interpretation going beyond the cases envisaged by the [Regulation]’ and that ‘the same person may be regarded as a consumer in relation to certain supplies and as an economic operator in relation to others’. In the present case, it was undisputed that the parties entered into contract which falls within meaning of Article 17(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The defendant acted as a person who directs its commercial or professional activities to the Czech Republic (by its branch registered in the Czech Republic; moreover, the communication with the plaintiff before conclusion of the contract was held in Czech language). On the contrary, the plaintiff had no other option to enter the contract but to accept the General Terms of the defendant and the contract was concluded for the purpose of satisfying plaintiff's own needs in terms of private consumption. The plaintiff in this contract must be deemed to be economically weaker party and thereby deserves special protection as a consumer. Then, pursuant to Article 25(4) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the agreement conferring jurisdiction has no legal force and the jurisdiction shall be established on the basis of Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (place of plaintiff’s domicile), as was correctly held by both lower courts.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as unfounded.
(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) Judgment of the Court of 20 January 2005, Johann Gruber v Bay Wa AG., C-464/01, ECLI:EU:C:2005:32, paragraphs 32 and 36.