Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2016-02-23; 20 Cdo 4263/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2016:20.CDO.4263.2015.1
Date: 2016-02-23
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82016CZ0223(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards the claim of M. S. (hereinafter the „plaintiff“) against the Czech Football Association (hereinafter the „defendant“) regarding a financial loss caused by delays with the issue of an International Transfer Card.
The plaintiff requested the enforcement of a Dutch judgment, issued with regards to this case, by the Czech courts. The Czech Court of First Instance declared this judgment enforceable in the Czech Republic and ordered enforcement of the plaintiff's claim. However, the court of higher instance revoked this decision and stopped the proceedings. It was found that the plaintiff had filed two different actions demanding the declaration the enforceability of the same claim; and that the continuation of the proceedings in question would be considered as a breach of the principle of the authority of res judicata. The higher court allowed the continuation of the proceedings only with regard to the costs of the previous enforcement procedure.
Based on this, the Court of First Instance ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The plaintiff appealed this decision. The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, reduced the amount of the costs enumerated by the lower court, but at the same time, added to this already reduced amount the new costs of the appeal proceedings.
The plaintiff appealed this decision by a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). According to the plaintiff, albeit the enforcement proceedings were multiple, they were not focused on the same claim; therefore, the principle of res judicata should not be applied in this case. Moreover, the principle of lis pendens could not be applied, because the proceedings stopped by the decision of the Court of Appeal were based on an action filed later, so it is the other proceedings that should have been stopped. Moreover, the plaintiff alleged a breach of its right to a defence and its right to justice based on an erroneous interpretation of Article 49 of the Brussels I Regulation (1) and the term “penalty” therein. According to that Article, a foreign judgment which orders a periodic payment by way of a penalty shall be enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the courts of the Member State of origin. The lower courts declared that the amount was not finally determined, but, on the contrary, the plaintiff alleged that the enforceable title was the “fine” which was final. Therefore, the plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to revoke the decisions of the lower courts and to order further proceedings in this case.
The defendant raised several objections against the cassation appeal. Firstly, according to the OSŘ (2), a cassation appeal is not allowed in disputes concerning amounts lower than CZK 50.000, which is in fact the case in the appealed decision. Secondly, the interpretation of the term “penalty” was correct, as the Dutch judgment used the same term as the Dutch version of the Brussels I Regulation. Therefore, the final amount must be, in compliance with Article 49, decided by the Dutch court, which it was not in this case. Thirdly, the defendant was not informed of the proceedings before the Dutch court, which is breach of Article 34(2) of the Brussels I Regulation. Fourthly, the defendant disagreed with the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts based on Article 6 of the Brussels I Regulation. Fifthly, the enforcement of this Dutch judgment is manifestly contrary to Czech public policy. Sixthly, the decision of the Dutch court breached the principle of subsidiarity and principle of preference of the FIFA court to handle similar disputes.
The Supreme Court held that the decision appealed by the cassation is of a lower amount than required by the OSŘ to admit the cassation appeal. For that reason, the cassation appeal was dismissed.
(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) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of civil procedure).