Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2014-08-27; 25 Nd 190/2014
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2014:25.ND.190.2014.1
Date: 2014-08-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82014CZ0827(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a payment of CZK 16,000 as a debt arising from rent.
The Okresní soud Písek (hereinafter "the District Court Písek") declared a lack of local jurisdiction and designated that the Okresní soud České Budějovice (hereinafter "the District Court České Budějovice") had local jurisdiction in this case. Its argument was that the court was not able to determine the place of residence of the defendant, so it applied a rule of Article 22(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), under which a place of immovable property may be a criterion for determining jurisdiction.
The District Court České Budějovice did not agree with this interpretation. It argued that based on Article 88 of the OSŘ (2), the criterion of place of immovable property applies only in case of existence, duration or expiry of property rights, and not in the case of rights related to immovable property, and instead asserted that the general rules of determining local jurisdiction based on the place of residence of a defendant should apply. As the defendant probably currently resides in Slovakia and none of the rules to determine local jurisdiction could be applied in this case, the case had to be submitted to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter "the Supreme Court") to rule, which of the Czech courts had local jurisdiction to decide in this particular case.
The Supreme Court argued that, based on Article 22(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, the courts of a Member State where is an immovable property as object of the proceedings have exclusive international jurisdiction, even in landlord and tenant disputes. The term “proceedings which have as their object tenancies of immovable property” has been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter "CJEU") in its case C-241/83 (3). CJEU stated in its judgment: “Any dispute concerning the existence of tenancies or the interpretation of the terms thereof, their duration, the giving up of possession to the landlord, the repairing of damage caused by the tenant or the recovery of rent and of incidental charges payable by the tenant, such as charges for the consumption of water, gas and electricity, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Article 16(1) of the convention on the courts of the state in which the property is situated.”
The Supreme Court applied Article 22(1) of the Brussels I Regulation. The Czech courts therefore had exclusive international jurisdiction. As it was not possible to determine a general court of the defendant based on the procedural rules of a national law, the Supreme Court designated under the Article 11(3) of OSŘ that this particular case should be decided by the District Court in České Budějovice. The reason was that this court is in the area of the immovable property and is the area of residence of the other party in the dispute.
(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) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 January 1985, Erich Rösler v Horst Rottwinkel, C-241/83, ECLI:EU:C:1985:6.