Nejvyšší soud České Republiky; 2012-11-05; 28 Nd 153/2012
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2012:28.ND.153.2012.1
Date: 2012-11-05
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82012CZ1105(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a determination of jurisdiction in a dispute between the Czech town Břeclav (hereinafter "the plaintiff") and J.Z. (hereinafter "the defendant"), a citizen of the Slovak Republic. J.Z. committed a traffic offence and was fined CZK 1.000, but he did not pay the fine in due time. The plaintiff claimed, via the bailiff, the enforcement of this fine.
The Okresní soud Břeclav (hereinafter "the District Court Břeclav") declared its lack of jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, as the defendant had a domicile in the Slovak Republic and did not even have an entry in the Central evidence of (Czech) citizens. The District Court Břeclav held that the jurisdiction of Czech courts is established, however, the local jurisdiction, due to the international element in the dispute, must be set by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter "the Supreme Court"). Therefore, based on § 11(3) of the OSŘ (1), the District Court asked the Supreme Court to decide which Czech court had jurisdiction in this case.
The Supreme Court first considered if the jurisdiction of the Czech courts is actually established. The Supreme Court considered this issue from three different points of view:
Application of the EU law: the Supreme Court firstly considered the use of Directive (EU) No 24/2010 (2). However, this Directive does not contain any rules regarding the determination of jurisdiction. Secondly, the Supreme Court considered application of the Brussels I Regulation (3). According to its Article 1(1), this Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court of tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters. Therefore, it was necessary to adjudge, if this dispute is of “civil or commercial” nature. In consideration was also reference for a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter "CJEU"), as the case-law of the CJEU does not include similar issues. Based on several judgments of CJEU and comments by legal experts, the Supreme Court decided that this case belongs to the so-called “acte clair” – issue, where the appropriate application of Community law may be so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to the manner in which the question raised is to be resolved. The Supreme Court did not find the preliminary ruling of CJEU necessary. The Supreme Court held that this case concerns a dispute where the public authority acts in the exercise of its powers, and as such, this matter is excluded from the area of application of the Brussels I Regulation. Moreover, the enforcement of the fine for the committed crime falls under criminal law, which belongs rather to the judicial cooperation in criminal matters according to Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union.
Application of private international law: the Supreme Court considered the applicability of Czech law ZMPS (4). However, this Law could be used only in civil, labour, family or commercial matters, which is not the case of this dispute, as the enforcement of the fine imposed by the town of Břeclav (its City Council) belongs under the public law - based on the proceedings related to the commitment of the offence.
Application of national law: based on aforementioned reasons, the Supreme Court declared the public character of the dispute. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Czech courts was set directly on the constitutional principle of sovereignty of State authorities over its territory and over all persons located in this territory whatever their nationality. This principle allows, in the case of exercise of public authority powers, to set national jurisdiction even over foreign nationals or persons resided abroad. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Czech courts was confirmed.
Concerning the local jurisdiction of the specific Czech court, the Supreme Court, in similar cases, usually determines the jurisdiction on the principle of economy of proceedings. Based on this practice, the Supreme Court decided that the District Court Břeclav had the jurisdiction to hear and decide this case.
(1) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure). (2) Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures. (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. (4) Zákon č. 97/1963 Sb. o mezinárodním právu soukromém a procesním.