Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2021-04-29; 30 Cdo 3189/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2021:30.CDO.3189.2019.1
Date: 2021-04-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82021CZ0429(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in action for compensation resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A Czech national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’). It sought adequate compensation for non-material damage he allegedly suffered because of unfair competition of the defendants. The defendants were a motor vehicle manufacturer domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) and a Czech vehicle importer selling cars manufactured by defendant 1. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants intentionally infringed Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) by equipping the car he bought from the defendants with software that manipulates data relating to exhaust gas emissions.
Defendant 1 objected to the jurisdiction of the Czech courts. The Court of First Instance invoked the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), dismissed the defendant’s objection, and confirmed its jurisdiction. The court relied on Article 7(2) since the car was sold in Czechia and the harmful event may occur on its territory, Article 18(1) relating to jurisdiction over consumer contracts and Article 8 of the cited Regulation, because the claims against both defendants, despite being domiciled in different Member States, are ‘so closely connected that is expedient to hear and determine them together’.
The Vrchní soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld the first instance decision. The court based its opinion mainly on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State, in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’.
Defendant 1 filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court alleging an erroneous application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The Supreme Court admitted the appeal only regarding Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The Supreme Court cited a very similar Case C-343/19 (3) of the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur is the place in any Member State within the territory of which consumers purchase the defective vehicle. ‘By knowingly contravening the statutory requirements imposed on it, such a manufacturer must anticipate that damage will occur at the place where the vehicle in question has been purchased by a person who could legitimately expect that the vehicle was compliant with those requirements and who subsequently realises that the vehicle is defective and of lower value’ (4).
Therefore, the Supreme Court confirmed that the non-material damage has occurred in Czechia, where the plaintiff purchased the car. The cassation appeal was dismissed, and the Court of Appeal’s order was upheld.
(1) Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information.
(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.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 July 2020, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG, C-343/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:534.
(4) Paragraph 37 of the cited judgment.