Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:848
Date: 2024-10-04
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Czechia

Summary C-494/23 – 1 
Case C-494/23 [Mahá] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice  
Date lodged:  
3 August 2023 
Referring court:  
Nejvyšší soud (Czech Republic) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
7 June 2023 
Applicants:  
QE 
IJ 
Defendants:  
DP 
EB 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings  
Judicial custody of an item deposited by a law-enforcement authority once the 
item is no longer required for the purposes of criminal proceedings – Release of 
the item from custody – Multiple parties claiming a right to the item – The need to 
obtain consent to the release of the item from all parties to the judicial custody 
proceedings – Substitution, by court decision, of the consent of persons who have 
withheld their consent. 
In the original proceedings, the applicants (resident in the Czech Republic) sought 
a decision that would substitute an expression of will of the defendants (resident 
in the French Republic) and have the effect of consent by those defendants to the 
release of an item from judicial custody to the applicants. 
 
i The title of the present case is fictitious. It does not correspond to the actual name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-494/23 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The subject of the request for a preliminary ruling is the interpretation of the rules 
for determining jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. 
In particular, the Court of Justice is asked to determine whether proceedings 
concerning the substitution of the defendant’s consent to the release of an item 
from judicial custody in which the item was placed by a law enforcement 
authority in criminal proceedings falls within the autonomous term of EU law of a 
‘civil and commercial matter’ as defined in Article 1(1) of 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 (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1; ‘Brussels I bis Regulation’). 
If it indeed does fall within that term, the Court of Justice is asked to determine 
whether an application initiating such proceedings may be deemed to constitute an 
application in ‘any other third-party proceedings’ within the meaning of Article 8, 
point 2, of the Brussels I bis Regulation, given that these proceedings are 
incidental to the proceedings concerning judicial custody. 
The legal basis of the request is Article 267 TFEU. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must Article 1(1) of 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 
be interpreted as meaning that the proceedings concerning the substitution of 
the defendant’s consent to the release of an item from judicial custody, 
which are proceedings incidental to proceedings on judicial custody 
commenced with the deposit in such custody of an item seized by law 
enforcement authorities, fall under the concept of ‘civil and commercial 
matters’ within the meaning of that provision? 
2. Should the first question be answered in the affirmative, must Article 8, 
point 2, of 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 be interpreted as 
meaning that an application for the substitution of consent to the release of 
an item from judicial custody filed by one of the parties to the judicial 
custody proceedings concerning that item, against another party to those 
judicial custody proceedings, constitutes an application [in proceedings] as 
provided for in the provision concerned? 
MAHÁ 
 
3 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
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 (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1): Article 1(1), 
Article 4(1), Article 5(1), Article 8, point 2, and Article 26(1) 
Provisions of European Union case-law relied on 
Judgment of 14 October 1976, LTU (29/76, EU:C:1976:137) 
Judgment of 27 October 1977, Bouchereau (30/77, EU:C:1977:172)  
Judgment of 3 October 2013, Schneider (C-386/12, EU:C:2013:633) 
Judgment of 28 February 2019, BUAK Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- u. Abfertigungskasse 
(C-579/17, EU:C:2019:162) 
Judgment of 18 September 2019, Riel (C-47/18, EU:C:2019:754) 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Zákon č. 141/1961 Sb., o trestním řízení soudním (trestní řád) – Law 141/1961 
on criminal proceedings (Code of Criminal Procedure) 
‘Paragraph 80 
1. If an item which was […] removed […] is no longer necessary for further 
proceedings […] it shall be returned to the person […] from whom it was 
removed. If another person claims a right to it, then it shall be released to the 
person whose rights to the item are unquestionable. If there are doubts, the 
item shall be placed into custody and the person claiming their right to it 
shall be advised to exercise their right in civil proceedings. […]’ 
Zákon č. 292/2013 Sb., o zvláštních řízeních soudních – Law 292/2013 on 
special judicial proceedings (‘LSJP’) 
‘Paragraph 298 
Release from custody 
(1) The court shall release the subject of custody to the recipient at the 
recipient’s request. If the item was placed in custody due to the fact that a 
person other than the recipient is claiming a right to the release of the subject 
of custody […], the consent of all parties shall be required for the release of 
the subject of custody […] 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-494/23 
 
4  
[…] 
Paragraph 299  
Substitution of consent to the release from custody 
(1) If consent to the release of the subject of custody has been withheld, it can 
be substituted by a final judgment of a court ruling that the person who 
opposed the release is obliged to consent to the release of the subject of 
custody to the applicant. 
(2) The court before which proceedings concerning custody are being conducted 
has jurisdiction in proceedings concerning the substitution of consent 
pursuant to Paragraph 299(1). 
Paragraph 300 
Special custody cases  
Where a court accepts into custody items in situations as provided for by other 
legislation, it shall be governed by the provisions of the applicable legislation 
[…], as appropriate according to the nature of the custody and its purpose.’ 
Zákon č. 91/2012 Sb., o mezinárodním právu soukromém – Law 91/2012 on 
private international law (‘LPIL’) 
‘Paragraph 6 
Jurisdiction of Czech courts 
(1) Courts of the Czech Republic shall have jurisdiction if, according to 
procedural legislation, a court in the territory of the Czech Republic has 
territorial jurisdiction, unless the provisions of this Law or another 
legislation indicate otherwise.’ 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 19 August 2017, the applicants purchased a motor vehicle in Germany, based 
on an advertisement. On 12 September 2017, the vehicle was seized by the Police 
of the Czech Republic on the ground that it is the subject of suspicion of the 
criminal offence of theft committed in France. Subsequently, the Police placed the 
vehicle in custody with the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (District Court, 
České Budějovice, Czech Republic). 
2 The applicants filed an application with the aforementioned court for the release 
of the vehicle from custody. Given that, in previous proceedings, other persons 
had claimed a right to the vehicle, according to the laws of the Czech Republic, 
MAHÁ 
 
5 
consent of all of the persons concerned is required for the release of the subject of 
custody, or the substitution of their consent by a court ruling. 
3 Consequently, applicants filed an application with the same court against 
defendants resident in France, for the substitution of their consent to the release of 
the item from custody. The defendants did not attend the proceedings. 
4 In connection with the defendants’ failure to appear, the court of first instance 
declared its lack of international jurisdiction and stayed the proceedings. The 
Krajský soud v Českých Budějovicích (Regional Court, České Budějovice, Czech 
Republic), as the court of appeal, upheld the decision of the court of first instance. 
5 The two courts concurred that the substitution of an expression of the defendants’ 
will is purely a civil claim, that there is an international aspect in the present case, 
and that the Brussels I bis Regulation applies. In view of the general rule of actor 
sequitur forum rei (Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation) and the list of 
permissible departures from it (Article 5(1) of the same Regulation), they hold 
that jurisdiction of a Czech court could be based only on Article 26(1) of that 
regulation. But the defendants did not attend the proceedings before the Czech 
court, so there is no legal basis for its international jurisdiction. 
6 The applicants filed an appeal in cassation with the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme 
Court, Czech Republic), the referring court, challenging the decision of the court 
of appeal. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 The applicants submit that the court of appeal erred in addressing the issue of 
international jurisdiction of the courts of the Czech Republic. They refer to 
Paragraph 299 LSJP, according to which the court before which the proceedings 
concerning custody are being conducted has jurisdiction in the proceedings 
concerning the substitution of consent. In the applicants’ view, the fact that the 
item was placed in custody with the District Court, České Budějovice, pursuant to 
Paragraph 80(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is decisive for the jurisdiction 
of courts of the Czech Republic. Hence, in accordance with the perpetuatio fori 
principle, that jurisdiction must also exist in proceedings derived from the custody 
proceedings. In the applicants’ view, the proceedings concerning substitution of 
consent do not stem from the substantive relationship between the applicants and 
the defendants, and hence, the rules laid down in the Brussels I bis Regulation 
cannot be applied. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
8 In the case in the original proceedings, it was necessary to answer the question 
whether the courts of the Czech Republic have international jurisdiction to decide 
the matter. The question at issue is whether the Brussels I bis Regulation should 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-494/23 
 
6  
be applied in determining that jurisdiction and whether the jurisdiction of the 
courts of the Czech Republic could be based on its rules, and if so, whether it can 
be based on provisions of Article 8, point 2, of the Regulation, which is 
formulated differently in various language versions. If the Court of Justice were to 
determine that the Brussels I bis Regulation is not applicable, the international 
jurisdiction, or competence, of the courts of the Czech Republic could be based on 
Paragraph 6(1) LPIL in conjunction with Paragraph 299(2) LSJP. 
The first question 
9 To reach a conclusion concerning the applicability of the Brussels I bis 
Regulation, it must first be assessed whether the matter in the original proceedings 
is civil or commercial. 1 There is no doubt that other conditions for the 
applicability of the Regulation are met. 
10 In the case in the original proceedings, the applicants’ car was seized by the police 
as an item important for the purpose of criminal proceedings. Once the item was 
no longer needed for the criminal proceedings, the law enforcement authority 
should in principle have returned the car to the applicants. However, other persons 
claimed a right to the car in the criminal proceedings. Consequently, doubts arose 
as to the person to whom the car is to be released, and therefore, that authority 
placed the item in judicial custody. 
11 The following facts support the conclusion that the original proceedings 
concerning the substitution of consent falls within the factual scope of the concept 
‘commercial and criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the 
Brussels I bis Regulation. 
12 According to national case-law, namely the unifying opinion of the Supreme 
Court R 24/2007, 2 the custody on which the law-enforcement authority decided 
according to Paragraph 80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, constitutes judicial 
custody according to LSJP. The purpose of this custody is to remove doubt as to 
which of the persons concerned has the right to have the item released to him or 
her by virtue of an ownership title or another right. The item is being placed in 
custody because the resolution of factual or substantive doubts as to the claimed 
ownership title or another right is not the purpose of criminal proceedings. 
 
1 The referring court notes that the general guidelines for an autonomous interpretation arising 
from the case-law of the Court of Justice do not clarify its doubts concerning the correct 
interpretation of the concept of ‘civil and commercial matter’ in relation to the original 
proceedings. In this context, it refers to judgments of 14 October 1976, LTU (29/76, 
EU:C:1976:137); of 3 October 2013, Schneider (C-386/12, EU:C:2013:633, paragraph 18), and 
of 28 February 2019, BUAK Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- u. Abfertigungskasse (C-579/17, 
EU:C:2019:162, paragraphs 46 and 47). 
2 Opinion of the civil and commercial chamber of the Supreme Court of 11 October 2006, Cpjn 
203/2005, R 24/2007, ECLI:CZ:NS:2006:CPJN.203.2005.1. 
MAHÁ 
 
7 
Decisions on such matters are, in principle, within the competence of courts in 
civil proceedings. 
13 The parties to civil proceedings concerning the custody of an item on the basis of 
a decision of a law enforcement authority are the party that released the item or 
from which it was seized, the party that claimed it in criminal proceedings, and 
potentially also the party that claimed a right to it in court in civil proceedings 
without having done so before a law enforcement authority. The depositor (in the 
case in the original proceedings, the Police of the Czech Republic) is not a party to 
the proceedings. 
14 Given that, in the original proceedings, the car was placed in custody because a 
party other than the recipient claims a right to its release, its release will require 
the consent of all parties to the custody proceedings (i.e., in the original 
proceedings, also the defendants resident in France), or substitution of that 
consent by a final court judgment. The exclusive territorial jurisdiction in the 
proceedings, laid down in Paragraph 299(2) LSJP, ensures that applications to 
substitute consent to the release of one and the same subject of custody, which in 
some cases several parties to custody proceedings have grounds to file, are joined 
before a single court for joint deliberation. 
15 According to the Supreme Court, 3 an application seeking the substitution of 
consent to the release of a subject of custody constitutes a procedural form of 
expression of the assessment of the question to whom the subject of custody 
should be released – that is, in other words – who has ownership title or another 
right to the subject of custody, on the basis of which a court will release the 
subject of custody. It is of no matter that ownership title or another right to the 
subject of custody is addressed in those proceedings merely as a preliminary issue 
and is manifest in the operative part of the judgment in the form of a ‘substitution 
of an expression of will’. 
16 To support the conclusion of the non-applicability of the Brussels I bis Regulation 
to proceedings concerning the substitution of consent to the release of the subject 
of custody, the referring court lists, in particular, the incidental nature of these 
proceedings to the custody proceedings initiated on the basis of provisions of the 
Criminal Code, and the risk of parties to custody proceedings thinking 
strategically in determining the venue. 
17 The referring court emphasises that the existence of the proceedings concerning 
the consent of another person to the release of the subject of custody is dependent 
on the proceedings on judicial custody. They constitute a method envisaged by the 
law for achieving the release of an item from judicial custody, as the lack of 
consent of the defendant to the release of the item in custody cannot be substituted 
by a decision determining ownership title to the item that is the subject of custody. 
 
3 Opinion cited in Footnote 2. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-494/23 
 
8  
As the Supreme Court noted in the unifying opinion referred to above, 4 ‘a final 
judgment of a court determining ownership title of the applicant or another party 
to judicial custody proceedings to an item in custody is not in itself a valid basis 
for the conclusion that the item will be released from custody to that person, as 
the resolution of the question of who is the owner of the deposited item may not 
necessarily put it beyond doubt whether the item should in fact be released from 
custody to that person and whether, for example, a secured creditor, the 
beneficiary of the right of retention, or a bankruptcy administrator is entitled to 
have the item released from custody, rather than the owner’. 
18 A certain parallel can be drawn with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Riel. 5 
In that judgment, the Court of Justice inferred that an application for the 
identification of receivables for the purpose of registering them in insolvency 
proceedings follows directly out of the insolvency proceedings, is closely 
connected with them, and has its origin in the law governing insolvency 
proceedings. Similarly, an application to substitute consent to the release of an 
item from judicial custody arises directly out of proceedings on judicial custody, 
is closely related to those proceedings, and has its origins in the law governing 
judicial custody, which shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to judicial custody 
proceedings initiated by law enforcement authorities. 
19 At the same time, the referring court points to the fact that, potentially, parties to 
the custody proceedings would be given latitude for strategic thinking, if it were 
necessary to determine international jurisdiction for proceedings on substitution of 
consent to the release of an item from custody on the basis of the jurisdictional 
rules of the Brussels I bis Regulation. 
20 It points out that, in the case in the original proceedings, the Czech parties to the 
custody proceedings sought the release of the car from custody, so that the French 
parties to the same proceedings were the defendants in the proceedings concerning 
the substitution of consent. Had the French parties sought the release of the 
subject of custody, they would have had to sue the Czech parties. This might 
motivate the parties to custody proceedings not to file an application for the 
substitution of will, and to wait for the other party to initiate proceedings, as 
according to the general rule of Article 4 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, they 
would be sued before the courts of their country of residence. In a standard 
situation, this would not constitute a problem, as it is a natural consequence of the 
jurisdictional rules embodied in the Brussels I bis Regulation. 
21 The original proceedings, however, constitute a dispute incidental to proceedings 
conducted before a Czech court, whose jurisdiction was established by an action 
of a law enforcement authority which did not assess its international jurisdiction. 
Without the intervention of the law enforcement authority, the international 
 
4 Opinion cited in Footnote 2. 
5 Judgment of 18 September 2019, Riel (C-47/18, EU:C:2019:754). 
MAHÁ 
 
9 
jurisdiction of the courts would have been determined differently in the case of an 
application for the release of the item between the same persons. Had the car not 
been seized by the police, it would have remained in the possession of the 
applicants, meaning that the original owners from France would have had to file 
an application for the release of the item. Due to the exercise of public powers by 
the law enforcement authorities, the determination of the court having 
international jurisdiction is influenced, and hence, there is potential interference 
with an otherwise predictably determined venue. 
The second question  
22 In the event of an affirmative response to the first question, the referring court 
asks whether Article 8, point 2, of the Brussels I bis Regulation must be 
interpreted to mean that an application for the substitution of consent to the 
release of the subject of custody, filed by one of the parties to the custody 
proceedings concerning that item against another party to those custody 
proceedings, constitutes an application [in proceedings] as provided for in that 
provision. 
23 The doubts of the referring court arise from the different wording of this provision 
in different language versions, and from the absence thus far of an interpretation 
of this provision by the Court of Justice. 
24 The Czech version of Article 8, point 2, of the Regulation uses the term 
‘intervenční žaloba’ [(application to intervene)], without making any reference to 
the status of the defendant as a third party. Similarly, the German version uses the 
term ‘Interventionsklage’ and the French version the term ‘demande en 
intervention’. 
25 On the other hand, the English version of the same provision accents the position 
of the defendant as a third party, and it refers to ‘third-party proceedings’. Similar 
wording is used, for example, by the Polish, Slovak, and Croatian versions. 
26 It follows from Court of Justice case-law that, in the case of diverging language 
versions, the provision concerned must be interpreted in its context and with a 
view to the purpose of the legal regulation of which it forms part. 6 
27 In identifying the purpose of Article 8, point 2, of the Brussels I bis Regulation, 
the referring court also examined the previous legislation, 7 the Court of Justice 
case-law concerning the purpose of that legislation and the previous legal 
 
6 Judgment of 27 October 1977, Bouchereau (30/77, EU:C:1977:172), paragraph 14. 
7 Article 6(2) of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in 
civil and commercial matters (OJ 1972, L 299, p. 32; ‘Brussels Convention) and Article 6(2) of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition 
and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1; [Czech] 
Special edition 19/04, p. 42). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-494/23 
 
10  
regulation, and the Jenard Report, 8 the text of which is used as commentary on 
the Brussels Convention, and it examines the purpose it pursues. It follows from 
the Report that, among other things, it was deemed appropriate in drafting the 
Brussels Convention to create separate provisions for guarantors and other third 
parties. The answer to the question of what is meant by ‘third-party proceedings’ 
was settled by reference to Articles 15 and 16 of the Belgian Code of Judicial 
Proceedings, which defined them as cases ‘in which a third party is accepted as a 
party to the proceedings.’ 
28 If the purpose of Article 8, point 2, of the Regulation were interpreted in the light 
of the Jenard Report and applied to the present case, it would probably not be 
possible to establish the jurisdiction of the Czech courts on the basis of that rule, 
as there is no third party in the proceedings for the substitution of consent to the 
release of the subject of custody, but rather, parties to the original custody 
proceedings. 
29 Another conclusion could, however, be reached in the case of a different 
autonomous interpretation of the provision. An application seeking the 
substitution of consent to the release of an item from judicial custody constitutes 
proceedings incidental to the custody proceedings. In many jurisdictions, 
incidental proceedings are subsumed under the more general term of an 
‘application to intervene’ as used by the Czech version of the Brussels I bis 
Regulation. 
 
8 OJ 1979, C 59, p. 1.