Nejvyšší soud; 2017-05-29; 30 Cdo 5260/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2017:30.CDO.5260.2015.1
Date: 2017-05-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82017CZ0529(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The administrator in the bankruptcy proceeding (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) of a Czech company called Moravian Aviation filed an action against a company called QucomHaps Holding (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) domiciled in Ireland. The plaintiff sought compensation due to unjust enrichment.
There was a lien agreed between Moravian Aviation, the defendant and one other company, the aim of which was to secure a claim by mortgaging the property of Moravian Aviation. According to point 7.4 of the lien agreement, the parties agreed to resolve all disputes under Czech law and by the Czech courts.
The Vrchní soud v Olomouci (hereinafter ‘the Higher Court’) decided the case to be tried by the district courts and designated the Městský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to resolve the dispute.
The defendant objected, claiming a lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts alleging that claim related to unjust enrichment could not be regarded as a claim arising from the lien agreement, therefore, the jurisdiction clause laid down in point 7.4 of the agreement could not be applied. Article 2(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) should be applied instead, according to which the jurisdiction of courts of Ireland (the defendant's domicile) shall be established. The Court of First Instance followed the arguments of the defendant and declared a lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts referring to Article 2(1) and Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation.
The Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance.
The plaintiff filed a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) alleging an existence of causality between the claim at issue and the lien agreement; as there would be no unjust enrichment without the existence of the lien agreement. Moreover, the question of international jurisdiction was already adjudged by the Higher Court, which declared the Czech district courts as competent to deal with this action.
The Supreme Court made clear that the decision of the Higher Court could not be regarded as the final decision on international jurisdiction, but only as the designation of the specific court competent to further consider the international jurisdiction. The Supreme Court cited the jurisdiction clause contained in point 7.4. of the lien agreement, according to which it covers all disputes arising from the agreement as well as all related claims. The Supreme Court assessed the jurisdiction clause in the light of Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation, according to which ‘if the parties … have agreed that a court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction’. The Supreme Court assessed this Article with respect to several judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union and concluded that the defendant could reasonably foresee a dispute like the present one at the time that it agreed to the jurisdiction clause. This implies that the jurisdiction clause was agreed validly.
The Supreme Court held that Czech courts had jurisdiction to try the case, rejected the decision of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a further hearing.
(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.