Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2021-05-18; 30 Cdo 3344/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2021:30.CDO.3344.2019.1
Date: 2021-05-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82021CZ0518(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A Czech national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Okresní soud v Liberci (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). It sought the payment of commissions from his activities as a sales representative, which he performed in the territory of Czechia based on a mandato di agenzia (commercial agency contract) for a company domiciled in Italy (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
The Court of First Instance stated the non-existence of an agreement on jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). There was an agreement that Italian law would govern the contract, but the contract lacked specific provisions regarding which court would resolve any potential disputes. The court established the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts on Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) because of the provision of services in Czechia.
The Krajský soud v Ústí nad Labem – pobočka v Liberci (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) confirmed both the reasoning and conclusions of the Court of First Instance.
The Supreme Court admitted the defendant’s appeal on an alleged erroneous application of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) in connection with the fact that parties agreed that the services would be provided in the several Member States, and the prorogation of jurisdiction allegedly concluded based on Article 25 of the Regulation.
The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings that the contract does not show sufficient precision and certainty that the parties agreed to establish jurisdiction on their mutual agreement. The pure reference to the Italian CC (2) cannot be regarded as a prorogation of the jurisdiction favouring the Italian courts.
The Supreme Court cited Case C-19/09 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (3), according to which ‘where services are provided in several Member States, the court which has jurisdiction to hear and determine all the claims arising from the contract is the court in whose jurisdiction the place of the main provision of services is situated. For a commercial agency contract, that place is the place of the main provision of services by the agent, as it appears from the provisions of the contract or, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract or, where it cannot be established on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled’.
Therefore, the Supreme Court confirmed the correct application of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation by the lower courts. The Court of Appeal assessed the place of provision of services based on the documents provided by the parties, and its conclusions establishing the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts were correct.
The appealed order of the Court of Appeal was upheld.
(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
(2) Codice Civile (Civil Code).
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 March 2010, Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade SA, C-19/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:137.