Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2024-08-22; 27 Cdo 3032/2023
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2024:27.CDO.3032.2023.1
Date: 2024-08-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82024CZ0822(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, decided by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerns a dispute over the jurisdiction of the Czech courts in relation to insolvency proceedings.
A company domiciled in the Czech Republic brought an action before the Městský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for compensation for damage allegedly caused by a company domiciled in Austria (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), which had acted as managing director of another company that had already been wound up. Following the transfer of the claim, the claimant company was replaced by another Czech company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’).
The Court of First Instance ascertained that the defunct company did not carry out any activities in the place of its registered office, had no branch in the Czech Republic and had transferred part of its activities to Austria. The company ceased to exist after the Commercial Court in Vienna conducted insolvency proceedings.  The alleged damage was caused by the defendant’s conduct in insolvency proceedings in Austria, and the defendant itself is domiciled in Austria. The Court of First Instance relied on the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), in particular Article 7(2) and (5) thereof, and held a lack of its jurisdiction.
The Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) modified the first instance decision. It held that the alleged damage related to the property located in the Czech Republic, so that the concept of ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ as defined in Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), could justify the jurisdiction of the Czech courts. It ordered the continuation of the proceeding in the first instance.
The defendant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court, arguing that the damage could only have occurred during the insolvency proceedings in Austria. The defendant also argued that the Court of Appeal had wrongly based its decision on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict), whereas the damage related to the defendant’s conduct as director of the defunct company. Therefore, the subject matter of the dispute was the claim arising out of a contract within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the Regulation.
The Supreme Court referred to its previous case law and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), citing in particular Case C-147/12 (2), according to which ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur … must be interpreted as meaning that as regards actions seeking to hold liable a member of the board of directors and a shareholder of a limited company for the debts of that company, that place is situated in the place to which the activities carried out by that company and the financial situation related to those activities are connected’. Such an interpretation could also be applied to the present case. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had not sufficiently identified the subject matter of the claim. The conclusion on jurisdiction was, therefore, preliminary.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, partially modified the decision of the Court of First Instance and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings, in particular for a reliable determination of the substance of the plaintiff's claim.
(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 (recast).
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 July 2013, ÖFAB, Östergötlands Fastigheter AB v Frank Koot and Evergreen Investments BV, C‑147/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:490.