Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2014-07-24; 26 Nd 374/2013
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2014:26.ND.374.2013.1
Date: 2014-07-24
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82014CZ0724(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
CP Inkaso s.r.o. (hereinafter “the plaintiff”) had a loan contract with M.B. (hereinafter “the defendant”). However, M.B. was delayed with instalments. Pursuant to their contract, the plaintiff had a right to claim repayment of the whole loan, and it lodged an application for an order for payment at the Okresní soud Most (hereinafter "the District Court Most").
The District Court Most discovered that the domicile of the defendant was unknown. Moreover, his current location was found to be most probably outside the territory of the Czech Republic, as his previous permanent residency status was terminated. For that reason, the precondition for determining local jurisdiction was missing, and District Court Most declared lack of its jurisdiction. Based on § 11(3) of the OSŘ (1), the District Court Most asked the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter "the Supreme Court") to decide which court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
The Supreme Court considered if this case could be regarded as a case with an international element. Usually, an international element is present in cases where one of the parties is a foreign national or person domiciled abroad. However, the subject of this case is the termination of loan contract between a Czech legal person and a Czech customer currently domiciled abroad. The Supreme Court pointed out the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its case C-327/10 (2), according to which, where a consumer renounces his domicile before proceedings against him for a breach of his contractual obligations are brought, the courts of the Member State in which the consumer had his last known domicile have jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (3), to deal with the proceedings in the case that they have been unable to determine the defendant’s current domicile and also have no firm evidence on which to conclude that the defendant is in fact domiciled outside the European Union.
The Supreme Court held that, based on Article 16(2) of the Brussels I Regulation, the jurisdiction of Czech courts was proven. For a determination of the local jurisdiction, the Czech legislation should be used. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the District Court Most had jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, as it was the court where the application had been lodged, it was already familiar with the case and so its jurisdiction would be in compliance with principle of economy of proceedings.
(1) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure). (2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 November 2011, Hypoteční banka, a.s. v Udo Mike Lindner, C-327/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:745. (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.