Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2014-08-26; 30 Nd 271/2014
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2014:30.ND.271.2014.1
Date: 2014-08-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82014CZ0826(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a payment of CZK 300,000 as a debt legal services provided.
The Okresní soud Praha 2 (hereinafter "the District Court Prague 2") referred this case to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter "the Supreme Court") to determine the local jurisdiction. The parties had agreed on the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts but the court had not found criteria to determine the local jurisdiction other than the submission to the Supreme Court to rule, to clarify which of the Czech courts had the local jurisdiction to decide.
The plaintiff was a law firm and a legal person residing in the Czech Republic. The defendant was also a law firm but residing in Slovakia. The parties agreed in the contract on providing legal services by the plaintiff, and also agreed that Czech law will apply to the contract. The parties also stated that the Czech courts would have international jurisdiction.
The plaintiff proposed that the Supreme Court designate District Court Prague 2 as having local jurisdiction in the case. The defendant did not file any motion. According to Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), if the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in a Member State, 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. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise.
In this case the jurisdiction of the Czech courts is therefore founded on Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation. Local jurisdiction is not a question of the interpretation of the Brussels I Regulation, but rather, has to be determined by the national law. As no procedural provision of the OSŘ in this particular case designates a court in the Czech Republic with the local jurisdiction, the Supreme Court applied Article 11(3) of the OSŘ – which allows the Supreme Court to arbitrarily decide which court is supposed to decide.
The Supreme Court designated the District Court Prague 2 with the local jurisdiction to rule in the case. The case should therefore continue at District Court Prague 2. The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that it is the court where a lawsuit was filed, it has substantive jurisdiction to rule in the case, the plaintiff proposed in its motion to provide the jurisdiction to this court and the defendant had not objected to it even though it had the opportunity to do so.
(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).