Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2020-04-15; 27 Cdo 3456/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2020:27.CDO.3456.2019.1
Date: 2020-04-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82020CZ0415(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts in a dispute concerning compensation for damages, which was resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A company domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought a case against its former manager (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), who is a Czech national, domiciled in Austria. The plaintiff sought compensation for the defendant’s alleged unjust enrichment caused by financial payments not substantiated by an existing contract between the parties.
The Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) declared a lack of its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 4 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) since the defendant is domiciled in a different Member State.
The Vrchní soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) annulled the first instance conclusion and cited Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State, in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’. This shall be applied to the present dispute and the current claim must be considered as compensation for damages. Since the damage occurred in the territory of the Czech Republic, the defendant may be sued before the Czech courts even if he is domiciled in Austria.
The defendant lodged a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cited Case C-189/87 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (2) according to which ‘the term “matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict” within the meaning of [Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast)] must be regarded as an independent concept covering all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and which are not related to a “contract” within the meaning of [Article 7(1) of the Regulation]’. However, the current claim must be understood as an action for compensation for damages caused by a breach of contractual obligations and as such must be governed by Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State, in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question’. The legal qualification of the action by the Court of Appeal was therefore wrong, but the conclusion was correct: the jurisdiction shall lie with the courts for the place where the plaintiff has a registered office, and this is the Czech Republic.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal.
(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.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 September 1988, Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst and Co. and others., 189/87, ECLI:EU:C:1988:459.