Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:672
Date: 2020-09-03;2020-09-02
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Czechia

Anonymised version 
Translation C-98/20 — 1 
Case C-98/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
26 February 2020 
Referring court: 
Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 (Czech Republic)  
Date of the decision to refer: 
27 January 2020 
Applicant: 
mBank S.A. 
Defendant: 
PA 
  
[…] 
O R D E R   
The Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 (District Court for Prague 8, Czech Republic) has 
ruled […] in the case mBank S.A., […], having its registered office at […] 
Republic of Poland, represented by mBank S.A., organisational unit, […] having 
its registered office at […] Prague 8[…] (the applicant) v PA, […], temporarily 
residing at […], Prague 8 […], effectively resident at […], Slovakia (the 
defendant) concerning the payment of CZK 41,666.55 plus associated amounts 
and interest, 
a s  f o l l o w s :  
I. […] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 1. 2020 — CASE C-98/20 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
II. Pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 (District Court for 
Prague 8) is seeking a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of 
the European Union on the following questions concerning the 
interpretation of Article 17(1)(c) and Article 18(2) of Regulation 
No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition 
and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), 
effective from 10 January 2015: 
1. Does the term “consumer’s domicile” within the meaning of 
Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 
on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments 
in civil and commercial matters (recast), effective from 10 January 
2015, mean the consumer’s domicile as at the date on which the 
application was lodged or as at the date on which the relationship 
of obligation arose between the consumer and his contractual 
partner (i.e., for example, as at the date of the conclusion of a 
contract), that is, will an agreement be a consumer contract as 
provided for in Article 17(1)(c) of the Regulation cited even in the 
event that the consumer has, as at the date on which the 
application was lodged, his domicile in a Member State other than 
that in which the consumer’s contractual partner pursues 
commercial or professional activities? 
2. Can a consumer having his domicile in another Member State 
under Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 
on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments 
in civil and commercial matters (recast), effective from 10 January 
2015, be sued in a court of the place where the obligation 
concerned was or should have been fulfilled (regardless of 
Article 18(2) and Article 26(2) of the Regulation) due to the fact 
that the consumer’s contractual party does not pursue commercial 
or professional activities in the State in which the consumer’s 
domicile is located as at the date of lodgment of the application? 
Statement of grounds: [OR 2] 
In its application (request for an electronic payment order) served to this Court on 
7 March 2018, the applicant is seeking the payment of CZK 41,666.55 plus 
interest of 9.9% per annum on the amount of CZK 41,016.55, calculated from 
19 August 2016 until payment, and with a capitalised interest of CZK 950.51, 
calculated for the period from 21 July 2014 to 18 August 2016. 
In its application, it states that on 21 July 2014, an electronic agreement on the 
“MPŮJČKA PLUS” cash loan was concluded by the parties […], on the basis of 
which a loan of CZK 50,000 was granted to the defendant, with an annual interest 
rate for the provision of the loan of 9.9% and an interest rate after the due date of 
MBANK S.A. 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
30%. The defendant repeatedly found herself in default on the payment of 
instalments and has not paid them even after several demands by the applicant and 
a pre-litigation attempt to reach a settlement which was sent to her by the 
applicant. Thus, the applicant is seeking the payment of the principal owed, 
interest on that principal, and statutory default interest. 
The territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and hence, the competence of Czech 
courts to hear the case, is inferred by the applicant from the defendant’s domicile, 
which the applicant designates as […]  Prague 8, Czech Republic. The defendant 
resided at that address at the time of the conclusion of the agreement and she 
designated that address in that loan agreement as the address of her permanent 
residence and her contact address.  
The Court ascertained from a communication from the Ministry of the Interior of 
the Czech Republic dated 11 January 2019 (No 181) that the defendant was 
“residing” in the Czech Republic from 7 January 2013 on the basis of a certificate 
of temporary residence unrestricted in duration. Until 31 December 2013, she was 
registered at […] Prague 8 — […], Czech Republic 
The Court has not succeeded in serving court documents on the defendant at any 
address in the Czech Republic. She accepted the documents, including the 
application, at […] Slovakia. With respect to the Court’s inquiry and notice 
pursuant to Article 26(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on 
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and 
commercial matters (recast), effective from 10 January 2015, she stated that, as at 
7 March 2018, her permanent residence was at […] Slovakia; nevertheless, on that 
day and for 6 days thereafter, she was not present there, as she was at a maternity 
clinic (which she documented with the birth certificate of her daughter, who was 
born on 7 March 2018 in […] Slovakia). As her address, the defendant stated […] 
Myjava (Slovakia). At the same time, she sought to have the hearing ordered by 
the Court for 20 February 2019 adjourned. 
As for the facts of the dispute, a loan agreement was concluded by the parties on 
21 July 2014, in electronic form. The applicant is a legal person and a business 
corporation whose main activity and line of business includes the provision of 
loans; in concluding the agreement, the defendant was in the position of a 
consumer. At the time of the conclusion of the agreement, she resided in the 
Czech Republic at […]  Prague 8 — […], which address she inter alia stated as 
the address of her permanent residence and the contact address in her loan 
application and in the loan agreement. It was, however, ascertained during the 
proceedings that the defendant is a citizen of the Slovak Republic and as at the 
date of the court application she was already dwelling in the [Slovak] Republic, 
because on 7 March 2018 (on the same day on which the court application was 
lodged), she gave birth to a child in the municipality of Myjava in the Slovak 
Republic, and accepted service of all court documents solely in Slovakia. Even 
though the defendant did make a statement with respect to the application at the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 1. 2020 — CASE C-98/20 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
Court’s request, the Court is of the opinion that this did not give rise to the Court’s 
jurisdiction, as she stated she did not recognise the Court’s jurisdiction. [OR 3] 
In the case concerned, the application was lodged with a Czech court, the 
applicant is a legal person having its registered office in Poland, engaged in 
business in the Czech Republic through its organisational unit. The defendant is 
an individual (consumer) whose residence at the time of the conclusion of the 
agreement concerned was in the Czech Republic, but who is still a citizen of the 
Slovak Republic, where she demonstrably had her effective domicile as at the 
application date and during the proceedings. Hence, the case is governed by 
European Union law, including Regulation 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), effective from 10 January 2015 (“the Regulation”), which must be 
applied in determining international jurisdiction to rule on the case.  
Pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation, subject to that Regulation, persons 
domiciled in a Member State are, whatever their nationality, to be sued in the 
courts of that Member State. 
Pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State 
may be sued in the courts of another Member State only by virtue of the rules set 
out in Sections 2 to 7 of that Chapter. 
Pursuant to Article 17 (Section 4) of the Regulation, in matters relating to a 
contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be 
regarded as being outside his trade or profession, jurisdiction is to  be determined 
by that Section, without prejudice to Article 6 and point 5 of Article 7, if it is a 
contract for the sale of goods on instalment credit terms, it is a contract for a loan 
repayable by instalments, or for any other form of credit, made to finance the sale 
of goods, or in all other cases, the contract has been concluded with a person who 
pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the 
consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that Member 
State or to several States including that Member State, and the contract falls 
within the scope of such activities. 
Pursuant to Article 18(2) (Section 4) of the Regulation, proceedings may be 
brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of 
the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled. 
Pursuant to Article 26 of the Regulation, apart from jurisdiction derived from 
other provisions of that Regulation, a court of a Member State before which a 
defendant enters an appearance is to have jurisdiction. That rule is not to apply 
where appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction, or where another court 
has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 24. In matters referred to in Sections 
3, 4 or 5 where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance 
contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee is the defendant, the 
MBANK S.A. 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
court shall, before assuming jurisdiction under paragraph 1, ensure that the 
defendant is informed of his right to contest the jurisdiction of the court and of the 
consequences of entering or not entering an appearance. 
Pursuant to Article 62 of the Regulation, in order to determine whether a party is 
domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of a matter, the court shall 
apply its internal law. 
Furthermore, the case is governed by the domestic legislation of the Czech 
Republic, in particular Zákon č.91/2012 Sb., o mezinárodním právu soukromém 
(Law No 91/2012. on international private law), Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb., občanský 
soudní řád (Law No 99/1963, the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)), and Zákon č. 
89/2012 Sb., občanský zákoník (Law No 89/2012, the Civil Code). 
Pursuant to Paragraph 6(1) of Law No 91/2012 on international private law, 
Czech courts are to have jurisdiction if, pursuant to procedural regulations, a court 
in the territory of the Czech Republic has territorial jurisdiction for the 
proceedings [OR 4], subject to the provisions of that Law or another legal 
regulation.  
Pursuant to Paragraph 11(1) CCP, proceedings shall be conducted before the court 
that has jurisdiction in terms of the subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction. Until 
such time as the proceedings are concluded, the facts as they existed at the time of 
the initiation of the proceedings are to be decisive for the determination of 
jurisdiction in terms of subject matter and territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, a 
court whose jurisdiction cannot be further examined by law or whose jurisdiction 
was determined by a definitive ruling of the competent court is always to have 
jurisdiction in terms of subject matter and territorial jurisdiction.  
Pursuant to Paragraph 84 CCP, unless otherwise stipulated, the general court of 
the party against which the application is being lodged (the defendant) shall have 
jurisdiction in the proceedings. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 85(1) CCP, unless otherwise stipulated by Law, the general 
court of an individual is the district court in whose circuit the person has his 
domicile, and if the person does not have a domicile, the district court in whose 
circuit the person dwells. If an individual has domiciles in several locales, his 
general court is all courts in whose circuit he or she dwells with the intention to 
stay permanently. If the domicile of an individual cannot be established or if it 
cannot be established in the circuit of which district court the individual dwells, or 
if it can only be ascertained with great difficulty, the general court of the 
individual is that district court in which the person’s permanent residence is 
situated, as registered in the information system of the citizen register pursuant to 
the  Zákon o evidenci obyvatel (Law on the registration of inhabitants), or the 
place of another type of residence registered pursuant to different legislation. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 80(1) of Law No. 89/2012, the Civil Code, a person has his 
domicile in the place where he or she dwells with the intention to live there 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 1. 2020 — CASE C-98/20 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
permanently, subject to a change in circumstances; such an intention may be 
evident from the person’s statement or from the circumstances of the case. If a 
person states as his domicile a place different from his actual domicile, any person 
may refer to his actual domicile. Objections cannot be raised against a person who 
in good faith refers to such a place, stating that the person’s actual domicile is 
elsewhere. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 80(2) of Law No. 89/2012, the Civil Code, if a person has 
no domicile, the place where he or she lives is to be considered his domicile. If 
such a place cannot be ascertained, or can only be ascertained with 
disproportionate difficulty, the place where the person has assets or where he or 
she last had his domicile shall be deemed his domicile. 
Hence, the Court evaluated the question of where the domicile of the defendant 
was as at the day of the lodging of the application pursuant to domestic 
legislation, and concluded that her domicile was in the Slovak Republic. The 
Court, however, considers to be open to question, and unaddressed by European 
Union law, the issue as to whether a “consumer’s domicile” within the meaning of 
Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation 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), effective from 
10 January 2015, means the consumer’s domicile as at the date of the lodging of 
an application or as at the date of the establishment of a relationship of obligation 
between the consumer and his contractual partner (i.e., for example, as at the day 
of the conclusion of  a contract). Whether the agreement between the applicant 
and the defendant is a consumer contract under Section 4 of Regulation 
No 1215/2012 depends on that issue. Even though the agreement concerned 
establishes a typical consumer relationship, since it is an agreement concluded 
between  a commercial party and a consumer, it does not pertain to the sale of 
goods on instalment credit terms, nor is it a loan for the financing of goods 
pursuant to Article 17(1)(a) or (b) of the Regulation cited and, pursuant to Article 
17(1)(c), it may constitute a consumer contract only if the contract was concluded 
with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member 
State of the consumer’s domicile. 
In its decision-making practice, the Court of Justice of the EU has not yet dealt 
with the determination of international jurisdiction in a situation such as that 
occurring in the case at hand, that is, in a situation where the domicile [OR 5] of 
the consumer against whom the application is lodged has changed subsequent to 
the conclusion of the relationship of obligation that is the basis of the dispute and 
before the lodging of the application. The solution to the issue cannot be inferred 
automatically from the Brussels I Regulation.  
Pursuant to Paragraph 109(1) CCP, a Court shall stay proceedings should (d) it 
decide to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for 
a preliminary ruling. 
MBANK S.A. 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
Consequently, the Court ruled, pursuant to Paragraph 109(1)(d) CCP to stay the 
proceedings until a preliminary ruling on the question of whether the term 
“consumer’s domicile” referred to in Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 
of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of 
judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), effective from 10 January 
2015, means the consumer’s domicile as at the date of the lodging of an 
application (against the applicant) or as at the date on which the relationship of 
obligation between a consumer and his contractual partner arose (i.e., for example, 
as at the date of the conclusion of a contract), that is, whether a consumer contract 
will be concerned as defined in Article 17(1)(c) of the Regulation cited even in a 
case when the consumer has, as at the date of the lodging of the application, her 
domicile in a Member State other than that in which the consumer’s contractual 
partner pursues his commercial or professional activities, and whether a consumer 
domiciled in another Member State may be sued under Article 7 of Regulation 
No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), effective from 
10 January 2015, before a court in the place where the obligation concerned was 
or should have been fulfilled (regardless of Article 18(2) and Article 26(2) of the 
Regulation) due to the reason that the consumer’s contractual partner does not 
pursue his commercial or professional activities in the State in which the 
consumer is domiciled as at the date of lodgment of the application.  
The national court is of the opinion that the correct interpretation of the disputed 
provisions is that which leads to the conclusion that the agreement concerned is a 
consumer contract and that decisive for the determination of international 
jurisdiction is the consumer’s domicile as at the time of the start of the 
proceedings, thus as at the date when the contractual partner lodged its 
application, regardless of the State in which the consumer resided at the time of 
the conclusion of the agreement. The court holds that only such an interpretation 
can fully support the purpose of the provision, which is surely to protect the 
consumer as the weaker party in the relationship of obligation and any subsequent 
dispute, which is one of the main objectives of the European Union and its 
legislation (Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union as well as recital 18 of Regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012). 
The general principle, including in Czech national law (see Paragraph 84 CCP 
cited above), is that the jurisdiction of a court is usually (albeit with many 
exceptions) determined according to the domicile (registered office) of the 
defendant. This is a certain benefit for defendants in the sense that they are being 
sued at the place of their domicile and are not forced to travel, because of judicial 
proceedings that they did not initiate, to the court of the domicile (registered 
office) of the applicant, which may be at a significant distance. According to this 
Court, that principle can be applied also (and in particular) in international 
disputes to which European Union law applies, the more so when the defendant is 
a consumer. The converse interpretation would put the consumer at a 
disadvantage, as it would make it possible to sue them, under Article 7(1) of the 
Regulation cited, in the place of the conclusion or performance of the contract, 
where they no longer live.  
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 1. 2020 — CASE C-98/20 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
[…]