Nejvyšší soud; 2012-09-12; město Břeclav; E. W.; 31 Nd 200/2012
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2012:31.ND.200.2012.1
Date: 2012-09-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82012CZ0912(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case regards a determination of domestic and international jurisdiction by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic the need of which arose in the case of a judgment enforcement by a bailiff.
The bailiff demanded to be appointed in order to enforce a decision. The Court of First Instance declared a lack of its jurisdiction and in accordance with § 11(3) of Czech Statute No 99/1963, the Code of Civil Procedure (“Code of Civil Procedure”), submitted the case to the Supreme Court to determine which court has an authority to decide the case. The defendant does not have habitual residence in the Czech Republic and is not registered in the Central evidence of inhabitants of the Czech Republic. Nothing else was found about the defendant. Therefore, it was clear that Czech courts have jurisdiction to appoint a bailiff, but there are no criteria for establishing a local domestic jurisdiction in this particular case.
According to § 252(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure if the defendant does not have a general court or his general court is not in the Czech Republic, a bailiff can be appointed by the court in the jurisdiction where the estate of the defendant is. The Supreme Court compared its previous case law which contains two disunited decisions. In the decision No 32 Nd 80/2012 the Supreme Court did not state which court had jurisdiction to decide the case with an argument that the Court of First Instance was not able to reliably conclude lack of its jurisdiction as a search for the estate of the defendant absented. On the other side, in its previous decision No 32 Nd 81/2012 the Supreme Court argued that the fact of defendant having an estate in the territory of the Czech Republic should be examined in the proceedings after the bailiff is appointed. Therefore, the court ruled and stated which court has jurisdiction in this case.
The Supreme Court chose to follow the second line of the case law stating that in its previous decision No 25 Nd 55/2006 it held that “in the stage before appointing a bailiff and before determination of the method of execution it is not possible to ascertain if the defendant as citizen of another Member State of the European Union without habitual residence in the Czech Republic has an estate on the territory of the Czech Republic”. This reasoning was part of the interpretation of Article 22(5) 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”): “The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile: in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced.”
As it was clear that Czech courts have the jurisdiction as the enforced decision is the penalty judgment of the administrative authority in the Czech Republic, the Supreme Court referred the case back to the Court of First Instance with the argument of the principle of efficiency while also acknowledging that the original penalty judgment was made in an area that falls into the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.