Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2015-12-09; 26 Cdo 1089/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2015:26.CDO.1089.2015.1
Date: 2015-12-09
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82015CZ1209(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
P.T. ("the plaintiff") submitted a request for judgment to the Supreme Court of Arizona (USA) concerning the payment of USD 100.000 as indemnification for infringement of his personality rights by T.B. (“the defendant”) and asked the Czech courts to recognise and enforce this judgement. According to the judgment, the defendant placed defamatory allegations about the plaintiff on the Internet.
The Court of First Instance denied the recognition as an agreement regarding the mutual recognition of judgments between the Czech Republic and Arizona was not proven and pointed to the fact that, in accordance with consistent case law in disputes relating to personality rights, the jurisdiction had to be determined exclusively according to the general court of the defendant.
The Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction of Arizona court could be established as per Article 5 of the Brussels I Regulation (1). The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union provides that in the event of the infringement of personality rights by means of content placed on a website, the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability either before the courts of the State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the State in which the centre of his interests is based. The disputed website was created by a company registered in Arizona, so Arizona may have jurisdiction too. With regard to the mutual recognition of judgements, the mere fact of the non-existence of a Czech judgment recognised in Arizona cannot be sufficient reason to deny the recognition of an Arizona judgment in the Czech Republic. Such a position would lead to a “vicious circle” having no solution in further cases. Therefore, the Court of Appeal dismissed the decision of the lower court and referred the case back.
The plaintiff appealed the decision, to the Nejvyšší soud (“the Supreme Court”), who dismissed the (first) decision of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back, pointing out that the lower court overlooked that Article 5 of the Brussels I Regulation applies to cases where a person domiciled in a Member State is sued in another Member State. Therefore, by way of analogy, Arizona can have jurisdiction only if the action was brought against a person domiciled in Arizona (or more generally in the USA) – which would also mean that this person (defendant) has his general court in the USA too.
The Court of Appeal, bound by the decision of the Supreme Court, examined whether the defendant had a domicile in Arizona at the time of the filing the action against him, but this condition was not satisfied. The Court of Appeal held (in its second decision) that the Arizona courts breached Czech jurisdiction rules and their judgment could not be recognised.
The plaintiff took the case again before the Supreme Court by filling a cassation appeal. The plaintiff argued that the jurisdiction of the courts of Arizona could be established based upon OSŘ (2) and ZMPS (3), as the place of harmful event lies in its territory, and that the Brussels I Regulation could not be applied as Arizona is not “the Member State” as required by Article 5. Conversely, the defendant argued that no damage was suffered in Arizona, because the disputed website contained information in Czech language only.
This time, the Supreme Court referred to some of its previous resolutions according to which the jurisdiction of the Czech courts should not be established exclusively on the basis of the general court of the defendant, but also on the basis of the principles laid down in § 87 of the OSŘ. Therefore, the conclusion of the Court of Appeal (based on the previous binding opinion of the Supreme Court) was held incorrect. The Supreme Court derogated from its opinion provided earlier (that the Arizona courts should have jurisdiction only in the case of a defendant's domicile in the USA). With regard to the interpretation of Article 5(3), the Supreme Court affirmed its previous opinion that it could be applied.
The Supreme Court dismissed the (second) decision of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to that court for further proceedings, where the court will be once again bound by the modified opinion of the Supreme Court.
(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.
(2) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of civil procedure).
(3) Zákon č. 97/1963 Sb. o mezinárodním právu soukromém a procesním (Act on international private and procedural law).