Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2022-08-31; 23 Cdo 1217/2022
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2022:23.CDO.1217.2022.1
Date: 2022-08-31
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82022CZ0831(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns the question of international jurisdiction in copyright matters brought before the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A Czech national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action against two natural persons domiciled in the United Kingdom before the Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). The plaintiff sought protection for its copyright of the music of a particular song, which had been unlawfully adapted and reused in another song produced by the defendants.
The defendants objected to the jurisdiction of the Czech courts, but the court relied on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and rejected the objection.
The Vrchní soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld the lower court’s conclusion that the present dispute fell within the category of actions in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict liability within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The harmful effects on the plaintiff’s copyright interests at issue occurred primarily in the territory of the Czech Republic, which justifies the jurisdiction of the Czech courts.
The defendants brought an appeal in cassation before the Supreme Court challenging the application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Both defendants are domiciled in the United Kingdom, and the contested song was broadcast in that State so that the United Kingdom courts have jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court recalled that the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) has already been interpreted in detail by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It covers both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, so that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the plaintiff, in the courts for either of those places. Predictability and the sound administration of justice favour the principle that intellectual property rights may be infringed in any Member State which protects them under its national substantive law. The courts of that Member State then have jurisdiction to hear claims for damages arising from an alleged infringement of the protected right committed within its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal rightly concluded that the plaintiff, relying on national copyright law, intended to protect its copyright interests in the territory of the Czech Republic and relied on the harmful effects suffered in the Czech territory.
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in cassation as unfounded and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that the Czech courts had jurisdiction to hear the case.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.