Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2023-12-13; 30 Cdo 1985/2021
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2023:30.CDO.1985.2021.3
Date: 2023-12-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82023CZ1213(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns a question of international jurisdiction in relation to an application for a European order for payment submitted to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A company domiciled in Czechia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action for a European order for payment before the Okresní soud v Ostravě (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against a company domiciled in Slovakia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The request concerned a claim for payment of a contractual penalty based on the non-execution of a contract to enter into a future contract relating to the future conclusion of a franchise agreement.
The Court of First Instance applied Article 63(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and held that it had international jurisdiction to hear the case on the basis of Article 7(1)(a) of that Regulation since the obligation to pay the contractual penalty had to be performed in the place where the plaintiff had its registered office (Czechia). The defendant’s objection to the jurisdiction of the Czech courts was rejected.
The Krajský soud v Ostravě (the Court of Appeal) upheld the first instance conclusion on the jurisdiction. The court recalled that, according to Section 1955 of the OZ (2), the place of performance of a monetary obligation is the creditor’s registered office, which is in Czechia.
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts had erred in assessing whether the contractual penalties could be subsumed under the concept of ‘contractual claims’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), moreover, if the contractual penalty is part of a future contract which is not itself a contract for the provision of services. The Supreme Court referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling. In Case C-393/22 (3), the CJEU held that Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) ‘must be interpreted as meaning that a contract to enter into a future contract relating to the future conclusion of a franchise agreement which provides for an obligation to pay a contractual penalty based on non-performance of that contract to enter into a future contract, the breach of which serves as a basis for a claim, does not fall within the concept of a contract for the ‘provision of services’ within the meaning of that provision. In such a case, jurisdiction over a claim on which that obligation serves as a basis is determined, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of that Regulation, by reference to the place of performance of that obligation.‘
Following the interpretation and referring to other case law of the CJEU, the Supreme Court held that the appeal was unfounded. Since the application of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation is excluded, the place where the obligation was or should have been performed is determined by the conflict of laws rules of the court before the case is brought. The parties agreed in the contract that the relations arising from the contract shall be governed by Czech law. The Supreme Court confirmed the correct application of Section 1955 of the OZ and that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).
(2) Zákon č. 89/2012 Sb., občanský zákoník (Law No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code).
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 September 2023, EXTÉRIA s.r.o. v Spravíme s. r. o., C-393/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:675.