Nejvyšší soud; 2019-05-21; 30 Cdo 3684/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2019:30.CDO.3684.2018.1
Date: 2019-05-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82019CZ0521(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 distribution company with its main activities in the sale of beverages domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) entered into a contract with a distribution company domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) and a producer of alcoholic beverages domiciled in Slovakia (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’). The defendants jointly undertook to not place the products of defendant 2 on the Czech market without the prior consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged a breach of this undertaking resulting in a financial loss and brought an action before the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance Prague 1’).
The defendants challenged the local jurisdiction of defendant 1, since the goods were delivered to its registered office in Brno, and international jurisdiction of defendant 2 domiciled abroad. The Court of First Instance in Prague 1 identified the relationship between the parties as a contract for ‘the sale of goods’ within meaning of Article 7(1)(a) first indent of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and held that the jurisdiction lies with the courts for the place ‘where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered’, i.e. in Brno. The Court of First Instance in Prague 1 terminated the proceedings and decided to refer the case to the Městský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Brno’). That court may also proceed against defendant 2 pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) cited Case C-9/12 (2) of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applied it to the current dispute and considered the relationship between the parties as contract for ‘provision of services‘. Therefore, Article 7(1)(a) second indent of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) applies, and the jurisdiction over defendant 2 lies with the courts for the place ‘where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’. Such place is the registered office of the plaintiff in Prague. Therefore, the Court of Appeal annulled the first instance conclusions concerning the termination of the proceedings as well as the referral to Brno. The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance in Prague 1 over defendant 1 was subsequently derived from § 11(2) of the o. s. ř. (3) which provides that where multiple courts are locally competent in a case, the proceedings may take place before any of them.
The defendants filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court arguing an erroneous application of Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and of the o. s. ř.
The Supreme Court held that the consideration whether the contract falls within the meaning of ‘sale of goods’ or ‘provision of services’ cannot be accepted as grounds for cassation appeal. The answer to this question was already clearly provided by previous case-law of the Supreme Court and the conclusions of the Court of Appeal did not deviate from it. With regards to the o. s. ř, the Supreme Court also held that the situation is clear from previous case-law. The o. s. ř. presumes a situation where several courts may have local jurisdiction over the same dispute. The proceedings may be heard by any one of them. The conclusions of the Court of Appeal were correct.
The Supreme Court held the cassation appeal unfounded and dismissed it.
(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.
(2) Judgment of the Court of 19 December 2013, Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA., C-9/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:860.
(3) Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).