Nejvyšší soud; 2013-02-26; ČEZ, a. s.; Land Oberösterreich (Země Horní Rakousko); 22 Cdo 2180/2009
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2013:22.CDO.2180.2009.1
Date: 2013-02-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82013CZ0226(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The plaintiff demanded that the defendant stop the filing of a lawsuit concerning the limiting of the operations of a nuclear power plant, or to set an obligation for the defendant to tolerate the operation of the power plant, or for a recognised determination that the plaintiff has a right to operate a power plant based on the building approval issued by the Czech authorities.
The Court of first instance dismissed the case. According to its opinion, there was no international jurisdiction of the Czech courts as this is not a dispute concerning a right in rem in immovable property according to the Article 22(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) (ex-Article 16(1) of the Brussels Convention (2)), and the jurisdiction of the Czech courts cannot be ascertained based on other articles of this regulation. It also argued that filling a lawsuit cannot be perceived as an interference with property rights in the sense of § 126(1) of the Občanský zákoník (Czech Civil Code). The court of second instance confirmed the decision. The court reminded the plaintiff that “proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property” as is stated in Article 22(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, cannot be interpreted as concerning all the proceedings where a right in rem comes into question. The abstention of filling a lawsuit concerns a right in rem only vicariously. It is necessary to interpret Article 22(1) restrictively; therefore it can be applied only to an action based on a right in rem, not to actions having only a weak link.
The plaintiff filed a cassation to the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic. It argued that any action restricting his right of usage of property is a breach of the rights of a proprietor, if it is not possible to use the property. The plaintiff did not agree that the jurisdiction of the Czech courts could not be based on the place of the immovable property. The plaintiff is also a legal person registered in the Czech Republic and was pursuing protection of its owner’s rights in relation to immovable property in the Czech Republic. The power plant was built and is in operation based on the decision of the Czech authorities. It also argued that the international jurisdiction could be based on Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation as the defendant did not object to the lack of jurisdiction of the Czech Courts.
The Supreme Court argued that the argument concerning a wrongful interpretation of Article 22 of the Brussels I Regulation was not correct. In its decision C-343/04 (3), the Court of Justice of the European Union argued that Article 16(1) of the Brussels convention is an exception from the general rule. It does not deal with all actions concerning rights in rem. An action for cessation of a nuisance, possibly preventive in nature, does not constitute a dispute having as its object rights in rem in immovable property. The real and immovable nature of that right is, in this context, of only marginal significance. The nature of this right and the fact of whether it is an immovable property does not have an influence on the nature of a dispute. The proceedings would not have been different if the protection was against interference with a right to physical integrity or a right to a movable object.
The Supreme Court also considered an application of Article 24 stating that apart from jurisdiction derived from other provisions of the Brussels I Regulation, a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed that the lower courts failed in not delivering an action to the defendant and did not consider basing the international jurisdiction of Czech courts on Article 24. But the lower courts remedied the defect by delivering an action to the defendant after the initiative of the Supreme Court. The defendant then objected the lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts. Therefore, the jurisdiction cannot be based on Article 24.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case.
(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) 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.(3) Judgment of 18 May 2006, Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ as., C-343/04, EU:C:2006:330.