Nejvyšší soud; 2012-09-14; ANDERSEAL, a.s.; J. V.; 28 Nd 240/2012
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2012:28.ND.240.2012.1
Date: 2012-09-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82012CZ0914(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case regards a determination of domestic and international jurisdiction by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic concerning a debt of 60,000 CZK from a loan agreement.
Relevant law: Article 16(2) and 24 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Brussels I Regulation”) and § 103 and § 11(3) of Czech Statute No 99/1963 - Občanský soudní řád (Code of civil procedure, OSŘ).
The Court of First Instance stated the lack of its jurisdiction and followed the procedure of § 11(3) of the OSŘ and referred the case to the Supreme Court to determine which court has authority to decide the case. The defendant is a citizen of Slovakia and since 31st December 1995 does not have habitual residence (i.e. domicile in common law) in the Czech Republic. Officials therefore do not have documents affirming the last known residence. The Court of First Instance came to the conclusion that before the expression of his will to accept the jurisdiction of Czech courts, Czech courts do not have jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court cited its previous decision 29 Nd 336/2007 stating that court can’t examine its international jurisdiction before the lawsuit is delivered to defendant. In this case, the Court of First Instance was not able to deliver the lawsuit as attempted delivery was to the address where the defendant undoubtedly does not have his habitual residence. The court did not give the defendant opportunity to establish the jurisdiction of the Czech courts, as is enabled by Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation.
According to the Supreme Court, it is up to the Court of First Instance to determine whether it is possible to deliver a lawsuit to a defendant using any means of delivery available and only in the case of unsuccessful delivery or in the case of successful delivery but without defendant entering an appearance can the case be dismissed for the lack of international jurisdiction of Czech courts.
In its decision, the Supreme Court did not state which court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.