Nejvyšší soud; 2013-03-27; Psychiatrická léčebna Bohnice, státní příspěvkové organizace; M. K.; 33 Cdo 123/2012
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2013:33.CDO.123.2012.1
Date: 2013-03-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82013CZ0327(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case regards a determination of domestic and international jurisdiction by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic in a dispute concerning the debt of 33,600 CZK from health services as the defendant did not have health insurance.
The defendant is a citizen of Slovakia. He had a place of habitual residence (i.e. domicile in common law) in the Czech Republic, where he does not reside now. He also does not reside in the place he designated as his place of residence after the end of the treatment. The Court of First Instance has not found any assets of the defendant in the Czech Republic. The Court of First Instance therefore held that Czech courts do not have international jurisdiction and dismissed the case.
The Court of Second Instance confirmed the decision, but added that the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Brussels I Regulation”) has to apply. The court argued that the Brussels I Regulation leaves the question of the place of residence for national law. Nevertheless, as the defendant was not found in the place designed by the plaintiff, or at any other address in the Czech Republic, the court reached the same conclusion as the Court of First Instance – Czech courts do not have international jurisdiction.
The plaintiff filled a cassation request to the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic with the argument that besides the defendant’s Czech place of residence she also designated the address of the defendant in Slovakia, which remained ignored by the lower courts. The Supreme Court concluded that a court cannot examine its international jurisdiction before the action is delivered to the defendant and allowing him to respond. The reason for this conclusion is that the international jurisdiction can be found in accordance with the Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation by responding without contesting the jurisdiction. As the lower courts did not have knowledge of whether the defendant is in the place of residence designated by the plaintiff and nevertheless did not try to deliver the action, Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation was breached. The lower courts settled with the finding that the order for payment was not delivered to the Czech address and did not survey other available sources (e.g. contacting the authorities in the last known place of residence, prison service, labour office, social security authorities or relatives of the defendant known from the Central evidence of inhabitants of the Czech Republic). The courts also did not consider applying Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation basing the jurisdiction on the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided.
The Supreme Court has abolished the decisions of Courts of First and Second instances and the proceedings will continue at the Court of First Instance.