Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2016-03-03; 23 Cdo 4291/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2016:23.CDO.4291.2015.1
Date: 2016-03-03
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82016CZ0303(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a claim for EUR 12,415 from a sales contract.
The original plaintiff delivered goods to the defendant and sent an invoice for EUR 12,416. The original plaintiff, later in the proceedings transferred its right for the sales price to the plaintiff, so the court from that moment considered the new subject as the plaintiff. The case was decided by the Městský soud Praha (hereinafter “the Regional Court Prague”), which later declared the lack of its jurisdiction.
It was clear and without doubt that the goods were delivered and that the price was not paid. However, it was controversial among the parties if the place of delivery was negotiated in the contract. It was not proven if the plaintiff entrusted a third party to collect the goods and deliver them to the defendant, nor if the defendant had entrusted a third party to take over the goods of the plaintiff in name of the defendant.
The court therefore applied Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) and also argued with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its case C-381/08 (2). The court argued that if a place of delivery cannot be determined from the contract, then the place of delivery is considered the place where goods were physically delivered. The court therefore argued that as the place of delivery was not in the Czech Republic, the Czech courts did not have the international jurisdiction in this case.
The Vrchní soud v Praze (“High Court in Prague”) confirmed the decision. The plaintiff filed a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). It argued that appellate court failed to apply Artcile 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation as the place of the contract is determined by the place where the goods are stockpiled, where they were manufactured or where the seller resides. It also argued that the case law used by the court of first instance and appellate court was not applicable, as the character of the sale was not of a consignment nature. If there is missing an element of transport of goods, it is not a consignment sale. The plaintiff denied that it was he who was obliged to provide delivery and transport of the goods.
The Supreme Court decided that the cassation was inadmissible and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court argued with the Court of Justice of the European Union case C-87/10 (3) and the previously cited case, based on which the place of delivery within terms of Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation is most convincingly the place, where the goods were delivered or should have been delivered. The argument of the plaintiff was not sound as the cited case law interpreted Article 5(1)(b) in general and was not specifying the terms only for the consignment sale as the plaintiff argues. Even if Article 5(1)(b) was not applicable, the courts would have to apply Article 2 of the Brussels I Regulation, based on which the international jurisdiction would be based on the residence of the defendant, i.e. in Austria.
(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) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 February 2010, Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems Srl., C-381/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:90.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 June 2011, Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA, C-87/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:375.