Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2018-09-26; 30 Cdo 2503/2016
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2018:30.CDO.2503.2016.1
Date: 2018-09-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82018CZ0926(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts in matters relating to a contract, answered by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
Two companies domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ’the plaintiffs’) alleged that a contract for the provision of legal advice and financial consultancy with a company domiciled in Austria (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) had, upon completion of the contract, remained unpaid by the defendant.
The case was brought before the Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). The defendant argued that the contract was not validly concluded since the plaintiffs had negotiated it with persons lacking the power to act in the name of and on behalf of the defendant. The Court of First Instance thoroughly assessed the negotiation process and concluded that the contract indeed was not validly concluded, and therefore, Article 5(3)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) cannot be applied to this case. The Court of First Instance declared a lack of its jurisdiction and dismissed the case.
The Vrchní soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) confirmed findings as well as the conclusion of the Court of First Instance.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court alleging an erroneous consideration of the jurisdictional question and wrongful findings concerning the conclusion of the contract. The plaintiffs alleged that they believed they had been negotiating with the persons responsible. Moreover, they obtained private access to the closed IT systems of the defendant, so they had no reasons to doubt the defendant’s intention to conclude the contract.
The Supreme Court cited the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and stated that Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) relates to all matters relating to a contract, i.e. not only to the contents of the contract, but also to the circumstances that lead to conclusion of the contract. The courts of lower instances needlessly dealt so thoroughly with the question of contract’s validity, as this was not the substantive issue to assess the jurisdiction. The lower courts should accept the plaintiff’s allegation that they had already performed the services allegedly contracted. Therefore, both lower courts erred in consideration of the jurisdiction.
Furthermore, Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict) shall be considered as a basis to establish jurisdiction of the Czech courts too. The case-law of the CJEU again shows that this provision may be applied to all actions seeking to establish the liability of the defendant.
The Supreme Court annulled the judgments of both lower courts and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance, which must reconsider the jurisdiction pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) and Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
(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.