Nejvyšší soud; 2018-08-08; 20 Cdo 981/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2018:20.CDO.981.2018.1
Date: 2018-08-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82018CZ0808(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards an execution of a claim brought by a company domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) against a natural person domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The claim originated between the defendant and his former spouse as a result of an unpaid loan between them. The claim was later transferred to the plaintiff, it was confirmed by a German Family Court and the defendant was ordered to pay back the loan (to the plaintiff).
This German judgment was declared enforceable in the Czech Republic by a decision of the Okresní soud Plzeň and it was not appealed by either of the parties. After that decision, the Okresní soud v Ústí nad Labem (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) ordered the execution of the enforceable claim.
The defendant asked the Court of First Instance to cease the execution, but the Court of First Instance refused to do so, referring to the foreign judgment which was already successfully declared enforceable in the Czech Republic and which was not appealed by the defendant during the enforcement procedure.
The defendant appealed to the Krajský soud v Ústí nad Labem (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging that the foreign judgment is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Czech Republic. Although the Court of Appeal held that the public policy clause may be considered as an objection in cases concerning the enforcement of foreign judgments, it was held inapplicable to the conditions of the current case and the first instance decision was upheld.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) alleging again a breach of the public policy clause, because the original claim arose between the spouses and Czech legal order does not recognise the transmission of such a claim to a legal person.
The Supreme Court pointed to the fact that the foreign (German) judgment was correctly declared enforceable in the Czech Republic on the basis of the Brussels I Regulation (1). Article 43(1) of this Regulation provides that ‘the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability may be appealed against by either party’ and the court shall then refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in Articles 34 and 35 of the Brussels I Regulation. However, the defendant did not appeal the previous decision declaring the foreign judgment to be enforceable and he cannot do so during the subsequent execution of the claim. Moreover, the public policy clause stipulated by Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation may be used only in cases where the claim breached the fundamental procedural principles of the state where the enforcement is sought, such as principles of a fair trial. The fact that the Czech legal order does not cover some property interest, which, in contrary, is covered by a foreign legal order, cannot be regarded as a manifest breach of public policy. Therefore, the claim, as the one in the present case, which originated as a matrimonial loan between spouses, but which was subsequently claimed in the court by a legal person, does not breach the public policy clause.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal.
(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.