Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2017-10-10; 20 Cdo 1270/2017-117
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2017:20.CDO.1270.2017.1
Date: 2017-10-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82017CZ1010(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An Italian company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) requested the Okresní soud v Uherském Hradišti (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Uherské Hradiště’) to declare enforceable in the Czech Republic a payment order issued by the Tribunale Civile di Messina, Italy (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Messina’) against a Czech company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
The Court of First Instance in Uherské Hradiště declared the payment order enforceable in the Czech Republic.
The Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) overruled the first instance decision and dismissed the plaintiff’s request. The Court of Appeal pointed out the defendant’s appeal addressed to the Court of First Instance in Messina and, by invoking Article 34 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), refused to grant the enforceability of the Italian judgment, since the outcome of that appeal was unknown to both the defendant and to the Court of Appeal.
The plaintiff filed a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) alleging the incorrect legal opinion of the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's appeal filed before the Italian court was not filed in compliance with Italian law and will be ineffective – therefore it had no influence on the payment order which was sought to be enforced.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal erred by not considering whether the actions made by the defendant in relation to the Court of First Instance in Messina were in compliance with Italian procedural law, what were the implications of such actions, what was the further action made by the Italian court and whether that court acted in accordance with Italian procedural law. Without considering these matters, the case could not be properly evaluated and decided. The Court of Appeal made an untimely conclusion.
The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings.
(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.