Nejvyšší soud, usnesení ze dne 29/04/2010 # KONFORM, s.r.o. / Erwin Behr Automotive GmbH
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2010:23.CDO.2619.2008.1
Date: 2010-04-29
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Concepts: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82010CZ0429(01)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
A Czech company brought an action for payment before the Krajský soud of Plzeň (CZ) against a company that has its seat in Germany. The parties in dispute concluded a contract for the sale of goods, agreeing the goods would be delivered to the seat of the defendant in Germany according to the CPT rule of INCOTERMS 2000. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, and on appeal the Vrchní soud of Prague (CZ) confirmed that decision. The plaintiff filed a further appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (CZ), arguing that the court of first instance did not correctly interpret Article 5(1)(b) Brussels I Regulation with regard to the CPT rule of INCOTERMS and that it did not interpret Article 31 (a) of CISG at all.
The Nejvyšší soud characterises the disputed contract as a contract for the sale of goods within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b), and adds that the place of delivery is not defined by the Brussels I Regulation. According to the Nejvyšší soud (CZ), the defendant based its arguments on an incorrect opinion that the decisive moment is the moment of the performance of the obligation, i.e., the moment of handing the goods over to the first carrier on the territory of the Czech Republic. It states further that only the place where the goods were delivered or should have been delivered is decisive and not the place of performance of the plaintiff's obligation to hand the goods to the first carrier, citing Article 31 CISG. The court refers to the ECJ decision of 25.02.2010 C-381/08-Car Trim, in which the ECJ decided that the place of delivery pursuant to Article 5(1)(b) must be interpreted as meaning the place where the physical transfer of the goods took place as a result of which the purchaser obtained or should have obtained actual power of disposal over those goods at the final destination of the sales transaction. The Nejvyšší soud confirms that Czech courts lack jurisdiction and dimisses the appeal.