Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2016-04-08; 28 Cdo 1469/2014
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2016:28.CDO.1469.2014.1
Date: 2016-04-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82016CZ0408(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a determination of whether a court decision from another Member State could be recognized in the Czech Republic. It concerned a decision stating that a plaintiff was obliged to pay tens of thousands of EUR to the defendants, as a debt arising from a car insurance contract. The driver of the insured car had an accident in the Czech Republic.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the case and sought to determine whether a decision of the court in Genova can be recognised as a court decision in the Czech Republic. The plaintiff required the court to state that the decision did not meet the conditions for such recognition and cannot be enforced in the Czech Republic. At the same time, the court refused a motion made by the defendants to suspend the proceeding until the appellate court in Genova decides in accordance with Article 37 of the Brussels I Regulation (1). Their reasoning was that there was not significant legal interest (a condition of Czech law to utilise an action for determination) and that parties must wait for the final decision of the Italian courts and then the fact of whether this decision is recognisable or not should be decided, as is the typical proceedings for recognition. The appellate court confirmed the decision. It repeated that there is no procedural motion for “non-recognition” of a decision in the Brussels I Regulation.
The plaintiff filed a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). The Supreme Court quoted the provision of Article 33(2) of the Brussels I Regulation: “Any interested party who raises the recognition of a judgment as the principal issue in a dispute may, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of this Chapter, apply for a decision that the judgment be recognised.” and analysed the wording of this provision in English, German and French language. Its conclusion was that even though the  Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had, so far, not decided on the of question whether a proceeding for “non-recognition” can be started, from its case law, especially in cases C-167/08 (2), C-148/84 (3) and C-172/91 (4), is clear that CJEU stated that the provisions for court decision recognition is a complex and autonomous area where the law of Member States does not apply. The Supreme Court also argued that the New Brussels II Regulation (5), in Article 21(3), explicitly states: “Without prejudice to Section 4 of this Chapter, any interested party may, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Section 2 of this Chapter, apply for a decision that the judgment be or not be recognised.” This was given as a further argument to evidence that the legislator did not intend to allow non-recognition of a decision in the Brussels I Regulation.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the case.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. (2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 April 2009, Draka NK Cables Ltd, AB Sandvik international, VO Sembodja BV and Parc Healthcare International Limited v Omnipol Ltd., C-167/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:263. (3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 July 1985, Deutsche Genossenschaftsbank v SA Brasserie du Pêcheur, C-148/84, ECLI:EU:C:1985:280. (4) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 April 1993, Volker Sonntag v Hans Waidmann, Elisabeth Waidmann and Stefan Waidmann, C-172/91, ECLI:EU:C:1993:144. (5) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility.