Nejvyšší soud; 2019-06-04; 20 Cdo 549/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2019:20.CDO.549.2019.1
Date: 2019-06-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82019CZ0604(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of admissibility of the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
Two authorised liquidators (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) of a foreign company applied before the Okresní soud v Pardubicích (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for the recognition and enforcement of a judgment given by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, according to which a natural person domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) was obliged to pay more than EUR 7 mil. As a consequence of the liquidation, insolvency proceedings were held. The Court of First Instance held that all formalities required by the Brussels I Regulation (1) were completed, recognized the English judgment and declared it enforceable in the Czech Republic.
The defendant appealed to the Krajský soud v Hradci Králové (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) asserting several grounds of appeal, mainly that (a) the Court of First Instance breached the rules governing the service of documents as they were not delivered to his official electronic mailbox, (b) the English court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the dispute, (c) the Brussels I Regulation cannot be applied in insolvency proceedings, (d) the amount to be paid under the English judgment is excessively high and disproportionate to the value of the company in liquidation, (e) the insolvency proceedings were manipulated by activities of criminal substance, (f) the defendant was deprived of his rights to be heard in the mother tongue since the English court neither provided him translation of relevant documents into Czech language nor accepted his submissions in Czech language and (g) the judgment cannot be enforced on the basis of European law since the enforcement was planned for the time after the expected Brexit date.
The Court of Appeal held that the service of documents was correct, since electronic delivery was not possible due to substance of the documents (certified translation) and delivery by classic postal service, which took place in this case, was then justified. The jurisdiction of the court of the Members State of origin may not be reviewed, as set out in Article 35(3) of the Brussels I Regulation. Furthermore, the wording of Article 36 of the same Regulation provides that ‘under no circumstances may a foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance’, which clearly excludes the questions whether the insolvency proceedings in the UK were manipulated or whether the amount to be paid was disproportionate. Neither may the public policy clause provided by Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation be applied, since this clause is applicable only in the case of a fundamental breach of principles of the Member State addressed, which did not happen in this case. With regards to the applicability of the Brussels I Regulation, the Court of Appeal cited the case-law of the Supreme Court and Article 25(1) of the Insolvency Regulation (2) which indicates that judgments such as the one which is sought to be recognised in this dispute shall be enforced by the Brussels I Regulation. The right to be heard in one’s mother tongue does not include the translation of official documents; such obligation does not follow from any international or national instruments. And finally, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union has no effect on the current recognition and enforcement, since the court must apply the corresponding rules in force at the time of the decision. The Court of Appeal found no grounds to annul the recognition and enforcement.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, which re-assessed all arguments laid down by the defendant, but confirmed all of the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeal which may be regarded as relevant for the admissibility of the cassation appeal.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the decision of the Court of Appeal was given in accordance with established case-law and the decision-making practice of the Supreme Court. The cassation appeal was held unfounded and it was not admitted.
(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 (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.