Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2012-02-22; 20 Cdo 166/2011
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2012:20.CDO.166.2011.1
Date: 2012-02-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82012CZ0222(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter "the Supreme Court") in a dispute between the Czech town of Oslavany (hereinafter "the plaintiff") and British company G&C Pacific Niue Limited (hereinafter "the defendant") concerning a payment of CZK 200 000.
Oslavany had a relationship with the British company BGC Developers. However, this company had ceased to exist due to a cross-border merger with the defendant. The bailiff decided that the proceedings should continue with the defendant as the legal successor of BGC, and this challenged by the defendant’s appeal.
The Městský soud Praha (hereinafter "the Prague Metropolitan Court") as the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision. As for the jurisdiction of the Czech courts, the Prague Metropolitan Court invoked Article 22(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), according to which, in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced shall have jurisdiction, regardless of domicile of the defendant.
The defendant argued that the enforceable title is the arbitration award and the application of the Brussels I Regulation, based on its Article 1(2)(d), is excluded. On the contrary, the Prague Metropolitan Court believed this excluding provision is not applicable in enforcement proceedings, where the arbitration award serves as enforcement title.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Prague Metropolitan Court wrongly applied § 200ua OSŘ (3), which is a transposition of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (2) and thus omitted to apply this Regulation. According to the defendant, the Prague Metropolitan Court was, after the merger, obliged to stay the proceedings, to ask the plaintiff to file a new application to issue a European Enforcement Order (EEO) and only after that the enforcement proceedings would be able to proceed further with a new party in the dispute (the defendant)
According to the Supreme Court, the purpose of the Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 is to create EEOs for uncontested claims. However, pursuant to Article 2(d), this Regulation shall not apply to arbitration. For this reason, the arbitration award could not be certified as an EEO. The Supreme Court added that even the application of the Brussels I Regulation is excluded, since pursuant to its Article 32, this Regulation relates to the “judgment” given only by a court or tribunal of a Member State, which is not the case in an arbitration award. The jurisdiction of the Czech courts is, on the contrary, determined by national legislation: § 45(2) of the Exekuční řád (4).
However, the defendant, in its cassation appeal, opposed only the facts that the proceedings were not stayed and that a new EEO was not granted. No objections against the legal successorship or to other legal issues were raised and the arguments of the defendant regarding the use of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 were held unfounded.
Therefore, the Supreme Court confirmed the legal conclusion of courts of lower instances to continue in the proceedings with the defendant and rejected the cassation appeal.
(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) Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims. (3) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure). (4) Zákon č. 120/2001 Sb. o soudních exekutorech a exekuční činnosti (exekuční řád) a o změně dalších zákonů.