Nejvyšší soud; 2019-05-07; 20 Cdo 4265/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2019:20.CDO.4265.2018.1
Date: 2019-05-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82019CZ0507(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement proceedings resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Okresní soud v Hradci Králové (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for the recognition and enforcement of a judgment given by the Bezirksgericht Oberndorf (Austria) ordering a natural person (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) to pay a claim amounting to EUR 7.180. The defendant invoked the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and argued that the recognition would be contrary to Czech public policy since the judgment was given in default of its appearance before the Austrian court, despite the fact that it provided an apology for not being able to attend the proceedings. The Court of First Instance confirmed that judgment given in default of defendant’s appearance would breach Czech procedural law. However, the Brussels I Regulation (recast) does not empower the court of the Member State where the recognition is sought to review the proceedings in the Member State of origin. The contradiction between the Austrian and Czech procedural law is not so crucial that the use of the public policy clause would be justified.
The Krajský soud v Hradci Králové (‘the Court of Appeal’) fully upheld the conclusions of the Court of First Instance.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing an erroneous application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), by the wrong assessment of the seriousness of the breach of Czech public policy and by the fact that the Austrian court lacked the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute at all.
The Supreme Court cited its previous case-law as well as the case-law Court of Justice of the European Union which is consistent in interpreting the public policy clause in a way that it is relevant only where recognition or enforcement would be at variance to an unacceptable degree with the legal order of the Member State in which recognition/enforcement is sought inasmuch as it infringes a fundamental principle of that state. Moreover, it shall be borne in mind that it is not the foreign judgment itself which may conflict with the public policy but is the effect of that judgment which must be manifestly contrary to the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Member State addressed. In the present case, the effect of the foreign judgment is the payment of the financial claim. This is the most common effect of Czech enforcement titles too, so the use of public policy clause pursuant to Article 45(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is unambiguously excluded in this case.
Neither Article 45(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) can be used as basis for refusal of recognition, since, despite the judgment was given in default of defendant’s appearance, the defendant had an option to challenge that judgment and the defendant also did so in Austria.
The grounds of appeal alleging the lack of jurisdiction of the Austrian court was refused too, since Article 45(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) clearly provides that ‘the jurisdiction of the court of origin may not be reviewed’ and there are no other indications that any extraordinary steps to overcome this provision should be made.
The cassation appeal was held unfounded and it was dismissed.
(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.