Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2021-04-27; 20 Cdo 1852/2020
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2021:20.CDO.1852.2020.3
Date: 2021-04-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82021CZ0427(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards the assessment of recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A Czech national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 4 (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’) and sought the seizure of property of another Czech national (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The basis for the request was a decision of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, United States (hereinafter ‘the US court’), by which the US court ordered the defendant to pay USD 100,000 because of an infringement of plaintiff’s personality rights by means of defamatory content placed online on an internet website.
The Court of First Instance invoked provisions of the ZPMS (1), Hague Service Convention (2) and the Brussels I Regulation (3). The court considered the amount of punitive damages to be manifestly disproportionate to the alleged harm, having a so-called ‘chilling effect’. The Czech courts would never award the plaintiff such high compensation. Therefore, under Article 64(d) of the ZMPS, the US judgment cannot be recognised and enforced in Czechia because it is contrary to Czech public policy.
The Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) relied on OECD data on average annual salary, according to which the salary in the United States is ca. 2.6 times higher than in Czechia, and came to the opposite conclusion. It explained that the plaintiff applied before the US court by a primary claim for USD 100,000 and a secondary claim for damages amounting to USD 1,000,000. The amount finally granted by the US court was therefore only ca. 10 percent of the demanded sum. Such an amount is then adequate and not contrary to Czech public policy. The first instance conclusion was changed and the defendant was ordered to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the US court had jurisdiction over the primary defamatory dispute. Since a specific international agreement between the states is missing, the jurisdiction must be assessed on general principles applicable in similar cases provided by the ZMPS or Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation. The Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-509/09 (4) explained that the plaintiff may bring the action before the court of any state ‘in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible’.
The deliberation about the amount of damages presented by the Court of Appeal was held useless. The US judgment does not provide any further specification on what the amount represents – whether it is the satisfaction of the main claim for USD 100.000 or whether it is the part of the secondary claim for USD 1.000.000.
The Supreme Court found that the US judgment was given in default of the defendant’s appearance. However, he was not instructed that his absence would result in non-service of the judgment. Neither was he informed that the time limit for appealing begins to run already from the decision date. The Supreme Court found this American praxis to be different from the Czech court proceedings to that amount that it contradicts a minimum standard of treatment of parties in Czech proceedings. This fact prevents the US judgment from being recognised in Czechia.
The Supreme Court amended the order of the Court of Appeal. It confirmed the first instance conclusion on the rejection of the recognition and enforcement of the US judgment in Czechia.
(1) Zákon č. 97/1963 Sb. o mezinárodním právu soukromém a procesním (Private International Law and Procedure Act No. 97/1963).
(2) Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
(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.
(4) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising GmbH and Others v X and Société MGN LIMITED, C-509/09 and C-161/10,  ECLI:EU:C:2011:685.