Nejvyšší soud; 2018-07-17; 20 Cdo 2302/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2018:20.CDO.2302.2017.1
Date: 2018-07-17
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82018CZ0717(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute between the liquidators of a company domiciled in the United Kingdom (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) and R. Š. (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The defendant, as a member of the statutory body of the company in liquidation, was accused of the intention to damage the company’s creditors. The judgment issued by the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales found him guilty and ordered him to pay more than GBP 7 million, together with interest, at a rate of 8 % per year. The plaintiffs applied for the recognition and enforcement of that judgment in the Okresní soud v Pardubicích (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), and the application was fully granted.
The defendant appealed to the Krajský soud v Hradci Králové (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) and also applied for a stay of the proceedings on the grounds that he had filed an appeal in the British proceedings. The Court of Appeal, pointing to its discretionary power established under Article 46 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), did not find any reason to stay the proceedings so upheld the first instance decision and dismissed the appeal.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) alleging (a) a wrong application of Article 46(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, (b) a wrong determination of jurisdiction under Article 43 of that Regulation, (c) an omission to apply Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (2), (d) an incorrect application of the Brussels I Regulation to the insolvency proceedings, (e) a breach of jurisdictional rules set by the Brussels I Regulation and a breach of its fundamental rights, (f) a lack of identification for him as the defendant in the action filed in the United Kingdom (only by name and surname), (g) a breach of his right to a fair trial as his appeal in British proceedings was not translated into English and he was not granted a legal representative even though he asked for one, (h) that the amount asked to be paid was too high and therefore contrary to public policy of the Czech Republic, and (i) a breach of procedural steps by the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court considered as correct the plea that Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 should be applied, as the plaintiffs’ action was closely connected to the insolvency proceedings; however, Article 25 of that Regulation implies the application of the Brussels I Regulation, which was then correctly applied by the lower courts. The public policy clause shall not be used either as it can be applied only to cases of a fundamental breach of national procedural rights, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the British court in the original proceedings was held as correct, as the main interests of the creditors as well as the domicile of the company in liquidation justified that jurisdiction without any doubt. All other objections were also held inadmissible (e.g. the identification of the defendant by name/surname was held sufficient in compliance with the British procedural rules; the right to a fair trial cannot be broadened to the right to translate the judicial documents to/from the mother language; the conditions to obtain legal representation were not met; and the only fact that the amount to be paid is high cannot be regarded as a breach of public policy either if the allegations of the excessive amount were not supported by any evidence).
The Supreme Court, after assessing all grounds of appeal, dismissed the cassation appeal as a whole.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.