Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2025-08-25; 20 Cdo 1073/2025
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2025:20.CDO.1073.2025.1
Date: 2025-08-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82025CZ0825(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, decided by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerned the refusal to enforce in the Czech Republic judgments delivered in Hungary under the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1).
A company established in Hungary (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) sought enforcement in the Czech Republic against a Czech company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The defendant applied to the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for refusal of enforcement of a judgment of the Budapest Court of First Instance and a judgment of the Budapest Court of Appeal, and sought a stay of enforcement. The Court of First Instance dismissed both applications.
On appeal, the Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld those dismissals and set aside the costs ruling. It found that the Budapest Court of Appeal’s judgment had been served on the defendant’s former legal representative despite notification that the power of attorney had been revoked; the defendant challenged service in Hungary only after the time limit had expired, and the Hungarian court rejected that challenge as untimely.
Before the Supreme Court, the defendant lodged an appeal on a point of law, alleging, inter alia, defects in service of the Hungarian judgments, defects in service of the certificate under Article 53 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and breach of Czech public policy. The Supreme Court noted that the lower courts had overlooked the domestic framework requiring such objections to be raised via an application to stop enforcement under the Enforcement Code (2); however, since the objections had been examined, that did not affect the outcome.
As regards the certificate under Article 53, the Supreme Court held, by reference to Article 43(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and the Enforcement Code, that it must be served before the first enforcement measure. Any failure by the enforcement officer to do so could not, however, justify refusal of enforcement on public policy grounds, nor was service of the certificate a condition for commencing enforcement proceedings or a factor affecting the certificate’s statement of enforceability.
As regards public policy, the Supreme Court held that Article 45(1)(a) must be applied restrictively and only in exceptional cases, covering only fundamental procedural guarantees. Since the defendant had been present at the pronouncement of the Budapest Court of Appeal’s judgment, had been informed that no appeal was available, and had a procedural avenue in Hungary to challenge service (which it pursued out of time), the alleged defects did not justify refusal of enforcement.
Finally, the Supreme Court held that arguments on the underlying obligation (including alleged impossibility of performance) amounted to a prohibited review of the merits under Article 52 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The appeal on a point of law was therefore dismissed.
(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 (recast).
(2) Zákon č. 120/2001 Sb., o soudních exekutorech a exekuční činnosti (exekuční řád) (Act No 120/2001 Sb., on Bailiffs and Enforcement Activity (Enforcement Code)).