Nejvyšší soud; 2018-11-27; 22 Nd 208/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2018:22.ND.208.2018.1
Date: 2018-11-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82018CZ1127(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
In this case the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) assessed the international and local jurisdiction of the Czech courts.
A company domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action before the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against an Italian citizen (hereinafter ’the defendant’). The plaintiff sought the repayment of an alleged debt arising from the tenancy of an immovable property located in the Czech Republic amounting to EUR 9.000.
The defendant objected and alleged a lack of jurisdiction since, at the time the application was submitted, he was not domiciled in the Czech Republic. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was identified in the leasing contract as a person conducting business in the Czech Republic. If the defendant is not domiciled in the Czech Republic, then Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) should be applied, according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State, in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question’ and the place of performance of the tenancy agreement was in the Czech Republic.
The Court of First Instance invoked Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), according to which ‘in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property [... an exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the parties, shall have... ] the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated’. The Court of First Instance considered the jurisdiction of the Czech courts established. With regards to the local jurisdiction, the Court of First Instance invoked § 11(3) of the o. s. ř. (2), which applies in proceedings against a person who is neither domiciled nor has a property in the Czech Republic, and asked the Supreme Court to decide on this matter.
The Supreme Court confirmed the correct application of Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). This conclusion was supported by the Case C-241/83 (3) of the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which ‘all disputes concerning the obligations of the landlord or of the tenant under a tenancy … fall within the exclusive jurisdiction conferred … on the courts of the state in which the property is situated’.
The Supreme Court held that the local jurisdiction lies with the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 2, in whose area of jurisdiction the property which is subject to the disputed tenancy agreement is located.
(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.
(2) Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).
(3) Judgment of the Court of 15 January 1985, Erich Rösler v Horst Rottwinkel, C-241/83, ECLI:EU:C:1985:6.