Nejvyšší soud; 2012-10-30; Matco, s.r.o.; M. Ch.; 32 Cdo 643/2011
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2012:32.CDO.643.2011.1
Date: 2012-10-30
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82012CZ1030(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case regards a cassation examined by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic concerning the debt of 12,951 CZK from a loan agreement and the determination of international jurisdiction of Czech courts.
Relevant law: Article 15(1)(c), 16(2), 17(3), and 23(1)(a) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ("Brussels I Regulation") and § 104(1) of Czech Statute No 99/1963, the Code of civil procedure.
This case concerns international jurisdiction based on the place of habitual residence, that is, domicile in common law. The defendant is a citizen of the Czech Republic. His mother provided the court with information that he stays in an unknown place in Great Britain and the Courts of First and Second Instance were not able to acquire any other information. The dispute concerned a consumer contract, a loan agreement. According to the rules of the Brussels I Regulation, an action can be brought against a consumer only in the Member State where the consumer has his habitual residence. With this argument, the Courts of First and Second Instance dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction of Czech courts. The plaintiff filed an appeal arguing that perpetuatio fori principle should apply and, therefore, only circumstances present at the beginning of the proceeding should apply. Also, because the courts have not been able to prove the place of habitual residence does not mean it is not in the Czech Republic. The court should have, therefore, made an attempt to deliver the lawsuit to the defendant.
According to the Supreme Court, the lower courts did not apply article 17(3) and 23(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation, according to which, contract parties may choose international jurisdiction. Parties chose international jurisdiction in part B of the contract. The prorogation clause in the contract established jurisdiction for Czech courts. The Supreme Court, therefore, did not provide an answer to the question whether the lower courts acted accordingly regarding the unknown place of habitual residence, as this part of the contract was omitted by the lower courts.
Decisions of the lower courts were annulled and the proceeding will continue at the Court of First Instance.