Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2023-03-29; 24 Cdo 3563/2022
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — CZ:NS:2023:24.CDO.3563.2022.1
Date: 2023-03-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82023CZ0329(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns the question of international jurisdiction in a maintenance case decided by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
The mother of three minor children domiciled in the United Kingdom (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action before the Okresní soud v Kolíně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for an order requiring the father, domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), to contribute to the maintenance of the children and to pay the maintenance due. The divorce proceedings were stayed before the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 6, pending a decision on the custody and maintenance of the children. By a decision of the Family Court of Canterbury, United Kingdom, all the children were awarded into the mother’s custody, but the British court refused to rule on the defendant’s maintenance obligation on the grounds that the father was not subject to its jurisdiction.
The Court of First Instance relied on Article 8(1) of the new Brussels II Regulation (1), which confers jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility on the courts of the European Union Member State in which the child is habitually resident. In the present case, the habitual residence of the plaintiff and all the children was in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the Court of First Instance held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
Following an appeal by the plaintiff, the Krajský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) overturned the conclusions of the Court of First Instance. It held that Article 1(3)(e) of the new Brussels II Regulation excluded its application to the maintenance obligation and declared that the jurisdiction should be governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 (2) instead. Article 3(1) of that Regulation suggests that the court in whose territory the defendant is habitually resident may also have jurisdiction. According to the Court of Appeal, it was in the best interests of the children that the maintenance obligation be heard by the Court of First Instance.
The defendant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had misapplied European Union law. The Supreme Court explained both concerned regulations’ positive and negative substantive scopes. It was clear and undisputable that Article 1(3)(e) of the new Brussels II Regulation expressly excludes its application to the maintenance obligations, which is the subject of the present proceedings. The Supreme Court confirmed the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 applies. In the light of Article 3(1) thereof, the choice of the criterion for the court’s jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance is the prerogative of the person entitled to maintenance. The plaintiff was entitled to bring the action before the court in whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. In maintenance disputes, it is not always in the best interests of the child to have the dispute decided by the court designated on the basis of the child’s domicile. The court of the maintenance debtor’s domicile may be better suited to determine maintenance – and that is the case here.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as unfounded and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations.