Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2020-02-06; 20 Cdo 3031/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2020:20.CDO.3031.2019.1
Date: 2020-02-06
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82020CZ0206(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Czech Republic, which was finally resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A company domiciled in Belgium applied before the Okresní soud ve Zlíně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for the recognition and enforcement of (a) a judgment issued by the Hof van beroep van Antwerpen, Belgium and (b) a judgment issued by the Arbeidsrechtbank Antverpen, Belgium. The Court of First Instance recognised the judgments, declared them enforceable, but refused to order the execution according to them.
Following the defendant’s appeal, the Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld the first instance decision by referring to Article 41 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), according to which ‘the judgment shall be declared enforceable immediately on completion of the formalities in Article 53 without any review under Articles 34 and 35’.
The defendant lodged a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court arguing an erroneous legal assessment of the case and the fact that the Court of Appeal ignored the defendant’s objection concerning the limitation of the claim, which, under the national law, should suspend the enforcement.
The Supreme Court cited Article 43(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, according to which ‘the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability may be appealed against by either party‘. Article 45 then provides that ‘the court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in Articles 34 and 35’. As provides Article 36 as well as Article 45(2) of the Regulation, ‘under no circumstances may the foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance‘. Therefore, the court of the requested Member State cannot assess neither the factual correctness nor the legality of the judgment which is sought to be recognised. The Supreme Court further cited Case 145/86 (2) of the Court of Justice of the European Union and applied the explanations provided therein to the current case. The defendant may, on the grounds of national law, appeal only the subsequent effects of the enforcement, but not the recognition itself. The defendant argued that the cassation appeal should be admitted since it concerns a matter not yet resolved in the case-law of the Supreme Court. However, the case-law of the Supreme Court in this matter is constant, i.e., the objection based on national procedural law (such as the limitation of the claim) cannot lead to the non-recognition of a foreign judgment, as the only conditions under which a foreign judgment shall not be recognised are strictly provided by Articles 34 and 35 of the Brussels I Recognition.
Therefore, the cassation appeal is not founded, and the Supreme Court dismissed it.
(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) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 February 1988, Horst Ludwig Martin Hoffmann v Adelheid Krieg, 145/86, ECLI:EU:C:1988:61.