Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2020-02-27; 27 Cdo 714/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2020:27.CDO.714.2019.1
Date: 2020-02-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82020CZ0227(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’)
A natural person (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) requested the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 4 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to issue a European Payment Order against a company domiciled in Luxembourg (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The request was made because of arrears of payment for the purchase of shares. The purchase in question was an additional one to the basic obligation agreed between the parties by a previous general contract. In the general contract, the parties agreed to apply French law to the contract and to resolve any potential disputes before the courts in Lyon, France.
The Court of First Instance invoked Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) concerning the prorogation of jurisdiction, concluded that the jurisdiction lies with the courts in Lyon, France and terminated the proceedings.
The Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) changed the first instance decision and ordered the continuation of the proceedings. The Court of Appeal held that the clause contained in the general contract between the parties cannot be automatically applied to each additional purchase of shares. The additional contract does not refer to the general jurisdiction clause. Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation then provides that ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State, in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question’. The jurisdiction of the Czech courts is therefore well justified.
The defendant lodged a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court alleging an erroneous legal assessment of the case as the additional contract should also be governed by the general contract, in which the jurisdiction clause was incorporated. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal omitted the fact that the parties agreed that their contractual relationship shall be governed by the French law. The assessment of the additional purchase contract must be therefore carried out under French law and only according to that law must be decided whether the jurisdiction clause applies to the additional contract too. The decision made without such assessment must be understood as premature.
The cassation appeal was granted, and the decision of the Court of Appeal was annulled. The case was referred back to the Court of Appeal for re-assessment.
(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.