Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2018-02-07; 30 Cdo 6002/2016
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2018:30.CDO.6002.2016.1
Date: 2018-02-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82018CZ0207(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case concerned a claim for damages in the form of a loss of profit because of the invalid termination of a contract on business cooperation. Based on this contract, the defendants were obliged to distribute alcoholic beverages exclusively within the business network of the plaintiff.
The Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) dismissed the objection of the lack of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts filed by the defendants. The Court of First Instance stated that the jurisdiction was based on Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), because the damage (loss of profit) was caused in the Czech Republic. The Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) confirmed the decision, but it concluded that the jurisdiction was rather based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2). According to the Court of Appeal, it is not possible to determine the jurisdiction from the event leading to the caused damage, as the termination of the contract itself did not caused the damage. The lost profit was claimed by the plaintiff as a claim from the contract. Based on this, the Court of Appeal concluded that the damage was caused in the place of business of the plaintiff because the assets of the plaintiff did not increase.
The defendants filed a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’). The Supreme Court argued that Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) deals with matters of delict or quasi-delict and Article 7(1) of the same regulation deals with matters of contract. With regard to the fact that the plaintiff claimed the damages caused because of a breach of the obligation from the contract, the Supreme Court concluded that this case concerns matters of contract and therefore Article 7(1) shall apply. The conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the international jurisdiction was based on Article 7(2) was held erroneous, and the objection of the defendants was admitted as reasonable. Therefore, the Supreme Court annulled both lower decisions and ordered the proceedings to be continued at the Court of First Instance.
The Supreme Court also, as an obiter dictum, stated that the determination of the international jurisdiction requires an answer to the question of whether the contract between parties was a contract providing services or whether it was a sales contract. If the contract concerned the sale of goods, the jurisdiction would be based on Article 7(1)(b) first indent of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). If it was contract providing services, Article 7(1)(b) second indent would apply. This issue could bring a difference in international jurisdiction as in the case of a sales contract the place where the goods were delivered or should have been delivered would determine the jurisdiction. This could be different from the place of performance in the case of a contract providing services.
(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) Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.