Nejvyšší soud; 2018-07-10; 20 Cdo 5769/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2018:20.CDO.5769.2017.1
Date: 2018-07-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82018CZ0710(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute between a Czech football player (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) and the Football Association of the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) concerning the transfer of the player from the Czech Republic to the Netherlands.
By a judgment issued in the Netherlands (Utrecht), the defendant was ordered to enable the transfer, and this was secured by a penalty payment for each day of failure to do so. The plaintiff applied to the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 6 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for recognition and enforcement of that judgment.
The Court of First Instance granted the application partially, ordering the defendant to enable the transfer. The second part concerning the penalty payment was refused citing Article 49 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), according to which ‘a foreign judgment which orders a periodic payment by way of a penalty shall be enforceable … only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined’.
Both parties appealed to the Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’). The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision and confirmed the correct application of Article 49, as the penalty payment was not finally determined by the courts of the Member State of origin. The fact that the foreign judgment provided the principles of how the final amount shall be calculated was held not sufficient enough. The court in which the enforcement is sought only examines the conditions relating to recognition and enforcement of the judgement, but it cannot review the foreign judgment as to its substance.
Both parties filed a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’). The plaintiff sought to reverse the judgments of the lower courts and asked for a full enforcement of the Dutch judgment, whilst the defendant alleged a lack of jurisdiction of the Dutch courts, as both parties were domiciled in the Czech Republic and the defendant was not informed about the action filed against it in the Netherlands.
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erroneously ignored the allegations of the defendant that (a) it was not served with the documents which instituted the proceeding in the Netherlands and (b) that the defendant was unable to arrange its defence. These objections of the defendant were held to be crucial and could not be put aside. With regards to the penalty payment which had not been finally determined, the Supreme Court cited its previous case-law, according to which the Court of Appeal shall, in such cases, ask the plaintiff to deliver a judgment of the court of origin, which determines the final amount to be paid, and only after that may it decide if such foreign judgment is enforceable or not.
Following the fact that the Court of Appeal failed to consider all relevant facts in the case and erroneously concluded that the Dutch judgment cannot be fully enforced in the Czech Republic without carrying out all the necessary procedural steps, the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to that court for further examination.
(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.