Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2025-05-27; 27 Cdo 404/2025
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2025:27.CDO.404.2025.1
Date: 2025-05-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82025CZ0527(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, decided by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerned whether Czech courts retain international jurisdiction over a counterclaim under Article 8(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) after the original action has been withdrawn and the proceedings on it discontinued.
An Austrian company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) had brought proceedings in the Czech Republic seeking a declaration that it was not obliged to repurchase certain bonds. The Czech bank (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) lodged a counterclaim seeking payment of CZK 5 000 000 for the defendant’s alleged failure to repurchase the bonds.
Following the plaintiff’s insolvency, the proceedings were stayed and later resumed at the request of the insolvency administrator, who continued the counterclaim. The defendant then withdrew the original action and objected that Czech courts lacked international jurisdiction to determine the counterclaim.
The Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) rejected the objection.
The Vrchní soud v Olomouci (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld that decision, holding that jurisdiction existed when the counterclaim (and its extension) was filed, since it arose from the same contracts/facts as the original action and therefore fell within Article 8(3). The subsequent discontinuance of the original proceedings, following withdrawal of the claim and non-payment of the court fee, did not affect that jurisdiction, in line with perpetuatio fori.
On an appeal on a point of law, the Supreme Court confirmed that, for special jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the decisive moment is the time when the relevant claim is brought. Where the conditions in Article 8(3) are satisfied at that time, later procedural developments affecting the original action do not extinguish the international (or local) jurisdiction already established for the counterclaim.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal and did not refer the case to the Court of Justice, as the answer was already established in previous case law.
(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 (recast).