Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2016-01-14; 30 Cdo 1941/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2016:30.CDO.1941.2015.1
Date: 2016-01-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82016CZ0114(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a debt of EUR 17_871.50 as a contractual penalty from a contract concerning the delivery of ski equipment, as the defendant failed to deliver goods in timely manner.
The defendant objected, citing the lack of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts. It argued in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) and Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) that the criterion of place of performance of the obligation in question should be taken into account, which is in this case Poland. The Court of First Instance decided that the defendant was obliged to pay the debt to the plaintiff. It based its decision for the jurisdiction of Czech courts on Article 5(1)(a), as the place of performance is the residence of the plaintiff. The appellate court annulled the decision of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the case. It argued that the Czech courts did not have jurisdiction. The goods were supposed to be assumed at the residence of the defendant, i.e. in Poland. Therefore, courts of Poland have the jurisdiction to decide the case.
The plaintiff filed a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). It argued that a claim concerning a contractual penalty is an autonomous claim. It argued that a claim for a contractual penalty cannot be taken only as a claim arising from a sales contract, therefore Article 5(1)(b) is not applicable as it only applies to the sale of goods.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case. It cited a case of the Court of Justice of European Union C-386/05 (2) based on which the criterion of Article 5(1)(b) should be used on all claims arising from a contract for the sale of goods. It should therefore apply even concerning a claim for a contractual penalty for late delivery. Therefore, the Czech courts did not have the international jurisdiction in this 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) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 May 2007, Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH, C-386/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:262.