Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2021-05-26; 30 Cdo 812/2021
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2021:30.CDO.812.2021.1
Date: 2021-05-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82021CZ0526(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards the question of international jurisdiction over the assignee of the claim, addressed to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A Czech citizen K.H. suffered an investment loss that became the compensation claim’s basis. The claim was assigned to a debt collection company domiciled in the United Kingdom (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), which applied before the Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’) and sought a payment from the defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 were natural persons domiciled in Czechia, whilst defendant 3 was a legal person domiciled in Malta.
The Court of First Instance invoked Article 7(1)(b) second indent of the Brussel I Regulation (recast) (1). Since the investment services were provided from Malta, it declared a lack of jurisdiction over defendant 3, favouring the Maltese courts, and terminated the proceedings against defendant 3.
Following the plaintiff’s appeal, the Vrchní soud v Olomouci (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) changed the first instance decision and reopened the proceedings against defendant 3. The Court of Appeal believed that the jurisdiction must be assessed according to the status of the original creditor K.H. Since K.H. concluded the contract as a consumer, the jurisdiction of the Czech courts follows from Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The assignment of the claim by the original creditor K.H. to the plaintiff cannot affect the determination of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal supported its opinion by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
Defendant 3 filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, alleging a misapplication of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and the case-law of the CJEU. Conversely, the CJEU already explained that ‘a legal person which acts as assignee of the rights of a private final consumer, without itself being party to a contract between a professional and a private individual, cannot be regarded as a consumer’ (2). The plaintiff replied that defendant 3 has a branch in Czechia; therefore, the jurisdiction of the Czech courts could also be based on Article 7(2) and (5) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and the cassation appeal of defendant 3 must be dismissed.
The Supreme Court refused to examine the question related to the alleged existence of a branch of defendant 3 in Czechia since it was not the basis for the appealed decision. Regarding the question of jurisdiction related to the assignment of claims, the Supreme Court confirmed that the CJEU had already clearly resolved this issue as cited by defendant 3 in cassation appeal. The provisions of the Brussels Regime related to the jurisdiction over consumers are based on the protection of the consumer as the party deemed to be economically weaker and less experienced in legal matters than the other party. This protective role should not be extended to persons for whom that protection is not justified. The legal opinion of the Court of Appeal was wrong.
The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to that court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeal shall again re-assess the jurisdiction of the Czech courts, and it may consider the application of Articles 7 and 8 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), as suggested by the plaintiff in 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 1 October 2002, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Karl Heinz Henkel, C-167/00, ECLI:EU:C:2002:555, paragraph 33.