Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2015-02-16; 29 ICdo 7/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2015:29.ICDO.7.2015.1
Date: 2015-02-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82015CZ0216(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned the invalidity of a payment to third persons and a payment of EUR 1,500,000 in the insolvency proceedings of a debtor.
The plaintiff filed a motion for the court to declare the invalidity of a transfer of EUR 500,000 as an instalment of a credit agreement and of EUR 1,000,000 also as an instalment of the credit agreement, and also requested the defendant to pay EUR 1,500,000 as part of the ongoing insolvency proceedings. The defendant objected, citing the lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts, as the parties had contractually negotiated that “any eventual dispute between contractual parties shall be decided exclusively by the courts in the state of residence of the creditor”, i.e. the defendant, who resides in Slovakia. The plaintiff objected and cited the opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its case C-339/07 (1). The defendant argued that the arguments of this decision should not apply in this case and emphasised that its objection of the lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts was based on Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (2), which is an exemption to Article 4(2)(m) of the Regulation. The Court of First Instance dismissed the defendant’s objection concerning the lack of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts. The court cited § 37 of the ZMPS (3) and § 88(v) of OSŘ (4) stating that if it is certain that the Court of First Instance has local jurisdiction and also that the Czech courts have international jurisdiction, then the objection of the defendant was not justified.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision. It argued that the principles of the ZMPS as a source of national law shall apply only if the law of the EU does not apply. The insolvency proceedings started in the Czech Republic and, based on Article 4(2)(m) and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000, all the rules preventing the harm to the creditor should be subsumed to Czech law. According to the court, the parties had negotiated only the international jurisdiction of any disputes arising from the contract, not the applicable law. Parties may agree on international jurisdiction based on Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation (5).
The defendant filed a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). It argued that the Court of Appeal failed to apply Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000. The Supreme Court concluded that both the defendant’s and the Courts of Appeal’s argumentation was wrong. The Supreme Court did however agree with the plaintiff that the defendant was confusing the terms of international jurisdiction and that of applicable law. Save as otherwise provided in the Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened. Article 4 therefore only defines what law is applicable. International jurisdiction is determined by Article 3(1) of the Regulation. The Supreme Court therefore applied the conclusions of case C-339/07 and stated that the Czech court which opened the proceedings had the jurisdiction to decide in all following proceedings. Even though the Court of Appeal failed to differentiate Article 3 from Articles 4 and 13, its conclusions were correctly concluded. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the case.
(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 February 2009, Christopher Seagon v Deko Marty Belgium NV., C-339/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:83.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.
(3) Zákon č. 97/1963 Sb. o mezinárodním právu procesním a soukromém (Statute on the Private International Law).
(4) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).
(5) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.