Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2016-08-24; 29 Cdo 5599/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2016:29.CDO.5599.2015.1
Date: 2016-08-24
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

820160CZ824(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a discharge of the debt and the question of the international jurisdiction of the case.
The Czech court of First Instance found that the same case between the same parties had already been brought before the Slovak courts. Therefore, the Czech court, invoking Articles 2(1), 6 and 27 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), declared their lack of jurisdiction and stayed the proceedings in favour of the Slovak court.
The plaintiff successfully appealed this decision and the Court of Appeal ordered the Court of First Instance to wait until the Slovak courts had reached a decision concerning their jurisdiction, and, at the same time, to start examining whether the jurisdiction of the Czech courts could be established.
The courts of Slovakia decided, based on the residence of the plaintiff, that they had jurisdiction over this dispute.
Based on this, the Court of First Instance declared the lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts, adding that the dispute in question concerns a consumer contract and therefore the jurisdiction must be based on the residence of the plaintiff, which is in Slovakia.
The plaintiff again appealed the decision, however, the Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
The plaintiff filed a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) requesting a resolution concerning the questions of whether Court of First Instance was obliged to stay its proceedings, whether the jurisdiction of Czech courts could still be established as per Articles 16(1) and 60(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, a further motion to annul the decisions of the lower courts, and to refer the case back to the Court of First Instance and decide on the reimbursement of costs.
The Supreme Court admitted the cassation only with regard to the procedural question of whether the court other than the court first seised should stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established and whether the courts of the State in which the other party to a consumer contract has its residence/domicile may have jurisdiction over a customer dispute.
The Supreme Court cited Article 16(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, according to which “a consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in the courts of the Members State in which the party is domiciled or in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled”. Therefore, it is evident, that the courts of both states may have jurisdiction over such a dispute and that the lower courts erroneously stated that the jurisdiction of the Czech courts could not be established.
Article 27 of the Brussels I Regulation provides a clear and effective mechanism for resolving cases of lis pendens, where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States. Such provisions are laid down to minimise the possibility of concurrent proceedings and to ensure that irreconcilable judgments will not be given in different Member States. However, neither Article 27 nor the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union require a specific formal procedure of how to declare a lack of jurisdiction in such cases. It is upon national legislation to set the rules to issue such a declaration assumed by Article 27. According to the Czech OSŘ (2), lis pendes does not need to be declared by a separate decision, but it is sufficient to stop proceedings according to the § 104 of the OSŘ.
The Supreme Court affirmed that the decision of the Slovak courts declaring their jurisdiction in this case may hamper the continuation of proceedings before Czech courts due to lis pendens, in compliance with Article 27 of the Brussels I Regulation and § 104 of the OSŘ. Therefore, the cassation appeal was dismissed.
(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) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of civile procedure).