Nejvyšší soud; 2019-04-24; 30 Nd 370/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2019:30.ND.370.2018.1
Date: 2019-04-24
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82019CZ0424(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international and local jurisdiction of the Czech courts resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A producer domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) entered into a contract with a company domiciled in Denmark (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) according to which the plaintiff undertook to produce 15 000 nail files and the defendant undertook to pay for the production and to take the nail files from the plaintiff’s factory. The plaintiff fulfilled its obligation, but the defendant took only one third of the produced nail files. The already produced nail files were labelled with the defendant’s logo and therefore had no value for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed the action directly to the Supreme Court on the basis of § 11(3) of the o.s.ř. (1), according to which the Supreme Court shall decide which court shall have the local jurisdiction in disputes where the defendant is neither domiciled nor has a property in the Czech Republic and where the jurisdiction cannot be established on other jurisdictional rules. The plaintiff derived the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts from the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2).
The Supreme Court cited Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State, in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question … [which] shall be, in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered’. Therefore, the Brussels I Regulation (recast) provides not only the international, but also the local jurisdiction, which, in this case, shall lie with the court for the place where the plaintiff’s factory from which the products were to be taken is situated. This dispute therefore does not fall within the § 11(3) of the o. s. ř., and the Supreme Court must deal with the present case acting as the Court of First Instance.
Since the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear this case at first instance, the case was referred to the Okresní soud v Mostě for further proceedings in this dispute.
(1) Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).
(2) 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.