Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2022-04-26; 30 Cdo 3690/2021
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2022:30.CDO.3690.2021.1
Date: 2022-04-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82022CZ0426(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns the question of international jurisdiction in the presence of several defendants domiciled in different countries, which was referred to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A debt collection company domiciled in the United Kingdom (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed a claim for damages in the amount of CZK 540 452 with the Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) as a result of the loss of investment of the person KH. The action was brought against two natural persons domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘defendants 1 and 2’) and a person domiciled in Malta (hereinafter ‘defendant 3’).
The Court of First Instance relied on the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast)(1) and stayed proceedings in respect of defendant 3. Since defendant 3 provided its financial services from Malta, the Maltese courts have jurisdiction.
The Vrchní soud v Olomouci (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) modified the first instance decision in such a way that the proceedings against defendant 3 were not terminated. It based its decision on Article 7(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), considering that defendant 3 had an establishment for customer contact in the Czech Republic. According to the Court of Appeal, the jurisdiction of the Czech courts could also be based on Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings‘.
Defendant 3 appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court, alleging a misappraisal of international jurisdiction and a misapplication of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The Supreme Court cited the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which implies that the defendants may foresee that they will be jointly sued in the courts of the Member State where at least one of them is domiciled at the time of commencement of the proceedings. The reason for departing from the general principle of jurisdiction (domicile of the defendant) in respect of some of the defendants is justified by the close connection between the claims. It is for the national court to assess the existence of a close connection between the claims in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. The Court of Appeal made a thorough assessment of that connection and concluded that it was expedient to hear and determine the claims together. All defendants were aware that KH did not fulfil the characteristics of a qualified investor, yet they have consistently allowed its investment. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Czech courts over defendant 3 is well-founded in accordance with the requirements of Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). This finding makes it unnecessary to examine the application of Article 7(5) of the Regulation.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in cassation and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.
(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.