Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2021-10-27; 27 Cdo 3037/2020
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2021:27.CDO.3037.2020.1
Date: 2021-10-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82021CZ1027(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international and local jurisdiction of the Czech courts in a copyright matter, which was addressed to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A collective administrator of audiovisual rights domiciled in Czechia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought a case before the Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). It sought payment for unjust enrichment from a company domiciled in Luxembourg (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), which transmitted, without licences, television and radio broadcasts in respect of which the plaintiff exercises collective rights management.
The defendant objected to (a) the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts, pointing to its registered office in Luxembourg and (b) the local jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
Since the alleged damage occurred in Czechia, the Court of First Instance based its international jurisdiction on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which a person may be sued ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’. The court also confirmed its local jurisdiction because the plaintiff has a PO BOX for receipt of written correspondence from the customers in the area of the Court of First Instance. Consequently, the jurisdiction follows from Article 7(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), according to which, ‘as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, [person may be sued] in the courts for the place where the branch, agency or other establishment is situated’.
The Vrchní soud v Olomouci (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) rejected the defendant’s appeal and confirmed the first instance decision.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, objecting to the local and international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
The Supreme Court cited the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which already interpreted the concept of ‘branch, agency or other establishment’(2). In this view, the PO  BOX serving only to receive customer correspondence does not meet the criteria established by the case law for a branch. Therefore, the Court of Appeal erred when referring to Article 7(5) of the Regulation.
According to the Supreme Court, the international and local jurisdiction shall be based directly on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). In the present case, the defendant transmitted, without a licence, objects protected by copyright law to users in the whole Czech territory. Since it is impossible to determine the place where the relationship between the tort liability and the competent court is closest, any court in Czechia in whose district the harmful event occurred or may have occurred, and which has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute in question, has local jurisdiction. The choice of the particular court is then left to the plaintiff.
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as unfounded and confirmed the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to hear this case.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) For example, Judgment of the Court of Justice 22 November 1978, Somafer SA v Saar-Ferngas AG., C-33/78, ECLI:EU:C:1978:205, paragraph 12 and 13.