Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2016-05-26; 21 Cdo 2826/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2016:21.CDO.2826.2015.1
Date: 2016-05-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82016CZ0526(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned an invalidity of a sale of an immovable property of a defendant to a third party.
The plaintiff filed a motion for the court to declare the invalidity of the sale of land by the debtor of the plaintiff to the defendant. Its reasoning was that there was a judgment against this debtor for CZK 300,000, but the debtor sold immovable property that he owned for CZK 650,000, which was not a reasonable price and by this the plaintiff, as a creditor, had his rights infringed upon.
The Okresní soud ve Strakonicích (hereinafter “the District Court Strakonice”) declared the lack of its jurisdiction and referred the case to the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (hereinafter “the District Court České Budějovice”). The court argued that as the sale of the property happened in České Budějovice, the place of the harmful event within terms of Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) is in České Budějovice. It also argued that Article 6(4) was not applicable as this dispute was not about rights from a contract relating to rights in rem in immovable property, but dealt with the action of the defendant causing a harmful event, so Article 5(3) of the Regulation should apply.
The Krajský soud v Budějovicích (hereinafter “appellate court”), after the District Court in České Budějovice disagreed with the reference of the jurisdiction, ruled that the disagreement was reasonable. It argued with the decisions of Court of Justice of the European Union in its case C-261/90 (2) and stated that action paulienne is not of quasi-delict nature and therefore it was not possible to apply Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation, it also was not a right in rem in immovable property in terms of Article 22(1) of the Regulation. Even Article 6(4) of the Regulation was not applicable, as this does not concern matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property against the same defendant. The appellate court also ordered the District Court in Strakonice to deal with the argument of the defendant questioning the lack of international jurisdiction. The District Court in Strakonice then dismissed the case as the Czech Courts lacked the international jurisdiction to rule in this case. The appellate court confirmed the decision.
The plaintiff filed a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). It argued that the nature of action paulienne is specific as a motion is filed against a third subject, not the debtor itself. Under the Czech law it enables a creditor's security to be protected by preventing the dissipation of his debtor's assets, it does not seek to preserve a factual or legal situation pending a decision of the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. It is therefore of quasi-delict nature, in the eyes of the plaintiff, and there should be a rule setting the international jurisdiction to the state with the closest links between the case and the court to enable due process. In eyes of the plaintiff the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") is not applicable.
The Supreme Court ruled in accordance with above mentioned decision that the purpose of action paulienne is not to remedy damages caused to a creditor, but only to order the revocation as against the creditor of the disposition effected by the debtor in the case of fraud of the creditor's rights. It cannot, therefore, be described as a provisional or protective measure. Concerning the application of Article 22(1) of the Regulation, the Supreme Court again cited the CJEU decision: “an action such as the action paulienne under French law seeks to protect whatever security the creditor may have by requesting the court having jurisdiction to render the transaction whereby the debtor has effected a disposition in fraud of the creditor's rights ineffective as against the creditor. Although it thus preserves the interests of the creditor with a view in particular to a subsequent enforcement of the obligation, it is not intended to obtain a decision in proceedings relating to 'recourse to force, constraint or distraint on movable or immovable property in order to ensure the effective implementation of judgments and authentic instruments' and does not therefore come within the scope of Article 16(5) of the Convention”. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that Article 22(1) shall not apply as action paulienne is not an instrument dealing with right in rem itself, it only provides protection to the creditor from a completely different legal relationship, not from the right in rem itself. To make a decision, a court does not have to know the circumstances around the immovable property; therefore there is no need for a close connection between the location of the property and the court.
The Supreme Court also concluded that even Article 6(4) of the Brussels I Regulation is not applicable. The defendant had not agreed with the international jurisdiction of Czech courts. Also, this is not a dispute concerning a contract. The defendant objected the claimed lack of jurisdiction of Czech courts in the first motion made in case.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the case and rejected the cassation.
(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 26 March 1992, Mario Reichert, Hans-Heinz Reichert and Ingeborg Kockler v Dresdner Bank AG., C-261/90, ECLI:EU:C:1992:149.