Nejvyšší soud; 2018-02-28; 30 Cdo 3215/2016
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2018:30.CDO.3215.2016.1
Date: 2018-02-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82018CZ0228(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a claim for EUR 17,000 arising from the contract for sale and delivery of 100 trampolines.
The Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) dismissed the case due to the lack of international jurisdiction of Czech courts. The Court of First Instance invoked Article 2 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), as the place of residence of the defendant was in Germany and Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, as the goods were supposed to be delivered to Germany. The courts of Germany should, therefore, have the international jurisdiction to decide the case.
The Krajský soud v Českých Budějovicích (hereinafter ’the Court of Appeal’) overruled the decision of the Court of First Instance and stated that the proceedings should continue. The contract between parties was not just a sales contract, but also a license agreement for an exercise program and for the trademark of this program. The contract contained a clause stating that all disputes will be decided by the Court of Appeal. A supplement to the contract stated that all disputes will be decided by the Czech courts. The Court of Appeal also concluded that the applicable law was the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), not the Brussels I Regulation. The defendant argued that for individual deliveries of goods parties entered into individual contracts. The Court of Appeal concluded that it is not possible to interpret a sales contract as a legal relationship between parties and individual deliveries of goods. Therefore, the jurisdiction clause in the contract should be applicable in line with Article 25(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and therefore the Czech courts have jurisdiction.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’). The Supreme Court argued that the contract in question was not a sales contract as it did not contain the obligation of the seller to transfer property rights to goods. That does not, however, mean that the contract did not have legal relevance. The terms for future sale conditions were set out by this contract. This contract, therefore, was in its nature a framework agreement, but the Court of Appeal failed to recognise that. Framework agreements do not create obligations until the sales contract for goods is entered into. When parties enter into sales contract, the specific conditions previously negotiated become part of the sales contract if they are not expressly excluded by in that sales contract. That did not happen in this case and, therefore, the jurisdiction clause was applicable. Even though the Court of Appeal failed to distinguish the nature of the contract as a framework agreement, its decision about the validity and applicability of the jurisdiction clause was correct and lawful.
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) Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.