Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2020-06-02; 20 Cdo 1403/2020
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2020:20.CDO.1403.2020.1
Date: 2020-06-02
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82020CZ0602(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of recognition of a foreign judgement in the Czech Republic resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
Two natural persons (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) applied before the Okresní soud ve Zlíně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for the recognition and enforcement of a judgment issued by the Rechtbank Amsterdam, the Netherlands, by which the plaintiffs were entitled to receive a payment from two other natural persons (hereinafter ‘the defendants’). The application was granted.
Defendant 2 appealed to the Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging an erroneous service of documents and a lack of her legal representation in the proceedings in the Netherlands. The Court of Appeal held that defendant 2 was represented in compliance with Dutch national law by a lawyer, who represented also defendant 1. In this case, defendant 1 and defendant 2 were previous spouses, not living together anymore. It was ascertained that the lawyer representing defendant 1 expressly confirmed during the Dutch proceedings that he represents also defendant 2 on the basis of credentials provided to him orally. The Court of Appeal cited Article 41 of the Brussels I Regulation (1) and declared that all the formalities requested for the recognition and enforcement were fulfilled. The first instance decision was confirmed.
Defendant 2 lodged a cassation appeal to the Supreme court alleging a conflict with Article 34(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (the Dutch judgment given in default of appearance) as she was not sufficiently represented by a lawyer since there was no oral authorisation to act in her name and that the documents of the proceedings were served only to the lawyer of her previous spouse and to her directly.
The Supreme Court cited again Article 41 of the Brussels I Regulation and further cited Article 36 and Article 45(2) according to which ‘under no circumstances may the foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance’. The court of requested Member State should indeed, under Article 34 of the Brussels I Regulation, assess whether the judgment was given in default of appearance and if the court considers that the conditions were fulfilled, then the foreign judgment shall not be recognised. However, this assessment is limited to basic facts, as the special circumstances of the case are part of the case-file of the court which issued the judgment, and the recognition and enforcement proceedings are based on the principle of mutual trust between the Member States. In the present case, the plaintiffs provided a certificate referred to in Article 54 of the Brussels I Regulation, issued by the Dutch court. If the Dutch court certified that the proceedings (including service of documents) were correct, then the court of the requested Member State cannot deny it. Moreover, it is evident that Dutch law indeed provides the possibility for a lawyer to expressly confirm that he represents the parties. The court of the requested Member State cannot assess if the lawyer was telling the truth or not as such assessment goes far beyond the formal recognition and enforcement proceedings. The conclusions of both lower courts were correct.
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.