Nejvyšší soud; 2012-12-12; VGD, s. r. o.; D. N. C.; 33 Cdo 1208/2011
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2012:33.CDO.1208.2011.1
Date: 2012-12-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82012CZ1212(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case regards a cassation examined by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic concerning the payment of 173,021 CZK for tax auditory services and the determination of international jurisdiction of Czech courts.
Relevant law: Article 2(1), Article 5(1) and Article 59(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ("Brussels I Regulation") and § 85(1) of Czech Statute No 99/1963, the Code of civil procedure.
This case concerned the international jurisdiction based on the place of habitual residence, that is, domicile in common law. The defendant is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland with a lawful temporary stay in the Czech Republic, based on his right of being a citizen of the EU. He objected the lack of jurisdiction of Czech courts with the argument that he does not have a domicile in the Czech Republic and his habitual residence is in Ireland. Both general jurisdiction based on Article 2 of the Brussels I Regulation and special jurisdiction of the place of supply of services based on Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation was applicable. The rationale of the Courts of First and Second Instance was that the defendant objected the lack of special jurisdiction, therefore, general jurisdiction should apply. The Courts of First and Second Instance thus dismissed the case.
The Supreme Court did not agree with the argument that a person can have only one domicile. Even if the lower courts found the defendant had a domicile in Ireland, it does not mean that his habitual residence is not also in the Czech Republic. Article 59(1) of the Brussels I Regulation foresees that habitual residence can be in two or more places. The Supreme Court did not accept the second argument. The special jurisdiction based on Article 5(1) is exclusively the plaintiff’s disposition. Therefore, it is the decision of the plaintiff whether the elective jurisdiction of Article 5(1) shall apply, and there is no legal instrument to avoid this in the hands of the defendant.
Decisions of the lower courts were annulled and the proceeding will continue at the Court of First Instance.