Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2015-10-29; 29 Cdo 1849/2013
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2015:29.CDO.1849.2013.1
Date: 2015-10-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82015CZ1029(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a debt of EUR 30_908.91 arising from a bill of exchange.
The plaintiff filled a lawsuit and the Court of First Instance used simplified proceedings and issued an order for payment. The defendant filed objections, but the Court of First Instance did not find them sound and reasonable. The Court of First Instance therefore left the order for payment valid. The appellate court annulled the order for payment and dismissed the case. The appellate court’s reasoning was that the issuer of the bill of exchange no longer existed. Based on this argument the appellate court, in contrary to the decision of the Court of First Instance (because the company had been erased from the commercial registry after filling this lawsuit), annulled the decision of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the case. The defendant also objected citing the lack of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts. The appellate court highlighted that the question of international jurisdiction has to be solved in accordance with the Brussels I Regulation (1) as the defendant is a citizen of Slovakia and has his domicile there. As there was no exclusive jurisdiction based on Article 22 of the Regulation, no facultative jurisdiction under Articles 5 or 7, there had not been an agreement on the jurisdiction in accordance with Article 23, nor could the jurisdiction be based on Article 24, the international jurisdiction could only be determined based on Article 2 – the domicile.
The plaintiff filed a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). The plaintiff argued with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, especially in case C-98/06 (2) and C-145/10 (3). The plaintiff argued that the international jurisdiction should have been based on Article 6 of the Brussels I Regulation, as the lawsuit was filed in the place of residence of one of defendants.
The Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court that the Czech courts did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court cited the aforementioned decisions, and stated: “As the Court has already held, for Article 6(1) of the Brussels Convention to apply, it must be ascertained whether, between various claims brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants, there is a connection of such a kind that it is expedient to determine those actions together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings (Kalfelis, paragraph 13). The Court has had occasion to point out that, in order that decisions may be regarded as contradictory, it is not sufficient that there be a divergence in the outcome of the dispute, but that divergence must also arise in the context of the same situation of law and fact (Case C-539/03 Roche Nederland and Others [2006] ECR I-6535, paragraph 26).” The Supreme Court therefore did not agree with the argument that to apply Article 6 of the Brussels I Regulation, the nature of the dispute must require both defendants to be in one proceedings. An option to have autonomous proceedings and decide individually against each of defendants is not a barrier to the application of Article 6. The Supreme Court, however, did not agree with the defendant. The simple reason that the legal person was abolished after the filling of the lawsuit did not mean that the international jurisdiction of Czech courts perished. International jurisdiction is always based on the circumstances at the moment of filling a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court therefore abolished the decision of the appellate court and decided that the proceedings should continue.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial C-339/07. (2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 October 2007, Freeport plc v Olle Arnoldsson, C-98/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:595. (3) Judgment of the Court of Jusice of 1 December 2011, Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others, C-145/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:798.