Nejvyšší soud; 2018-11-27; 20 Cdo 5198/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2018:20.CDO.5198.2017.1
Date: 2018-11-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82018CZ1127(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
In this case the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) addressed a question of the recognition of a foreign judgment.
A company domiciled in the United States (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Okresní soud v Benešově (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for the recognition of a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ordering three companies domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the defendants’) to pay damages amounting to USD 25 million.
The Court of First Instance assessed the application under ZMPS (1) and held that it did not meet the conditions for recognition as laid down by § 14 to 16 of the ZMPS: the jurisdiction of the Delaware court was not affirmed, but objected to by the defendants instead; a declaration of the definitive and enforceable character of the Delaware decision was missing - an affidavit issued by plaintiff’s lawyer was considered as insufficient evidence; the Delaware decision was contrary to the Czech public policy due to the disproportionately high amount to be paid (punitive damages) and the procedural right to have service effected on the defendants was breached. The application was therefore rejected.
The Krajský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) commented on the first instance proceedings by stating that the Delaware decision was correctly accompanied by an apostille of enforceability in compliance with the Hague Apostille Convention (2), but otherwise concurred with the findings and conclusions of the Court of the First Instance. In the absence of a specific international agreement between the Czech Republic and the United States on the mutual recognition of judgments, it is the ZMPS which must be applied, and it was applied correctly. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision.
The decision of the Court of Appeal was cassationally appealed to the Supreme Court by both parties: the plaintiff alleged the erroneous application of the ZMPS and a wrongful assessment of the factual situation while the defendants appealed only the quantification of the costs of the proceedings.
The Supreme Court stated that the cassation appeal must be strictly based on one of the grounds provided by § 237 o. s. ř. (3). It is not sufficient to claim that the matter ‘shall be resolved differently’ as argued the plaintiff in the appeal.
With regards to the cassation appeal filed by the defendants, the Supreme Court cited its previous case-law in which it had already decided that the expenses of lawyers in a recognition procedure cannot be derived from the subject of the dispute, since the recognition procedure is merely a formal procedure. The expenses are then based on general tariffs pursuant to decrees of the Ministry of Justice, as was correctly applied by both lower courts.
The Supreme Court dismissed both cassation appeals as unfounded.
(1) Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém (Act on Private International Law).
(2) The Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents.
(3) Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).