Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2022-02-18; 30 Cdo 2808/2021
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2022:30.CDO.2808.2021.1
Date: 2022-02-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82022CZ0218(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns the question of international jurisdiction and a plea of lis pendens that was referred to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
An exclusive distributor of goods domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action before the Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) seeking protection against unfair competition by the defendants. An Italian company (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) contested the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts. It also raised a plea of lis pendens.
The Court of First Instance relied on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and confirmed its international jurisdiction. The court also rejected the plea of lis pendens.
The Vrchní soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld the first instance conclusion on the jurisdiction but modified the decision on lis pendens. Relying on Article 29(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the Court of Appeal held that the other proceedings (brought before an Italian court) involved different parties and, therefore, the lis pendens clause could not be applied to the present proceedings.
Defendant 1 lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court on the grounds of an erroneous assessment of the international jurisdiction, claiming that: (a) its commercial activities were not directed at the territory of the Czech Republic; (b) Article 29(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) had been misapplied; and (c) the formal finding that the parties before the Italian court were ‘different’ had been made without a thorough assessment of whether the difference between the parties was not purely expedient.
The Supreme Court cited Case C-509/09 (2) of the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which ‘the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based’. The Court of Appeal did not err in the application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) in concluding that the centre of interests of the plaintiff is its registered office within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
The Supreme Court also referred to Case C-351/96 (3), which implies that the different parties may be considered to be the same party if their interests in the matter are identical and inseparable to the extent that a judgment given against one of them would have the effect of res judicatae against the other. When the Court of Appeal states that it is ‘quite obvious that there are different parties to the Italian proceedings’ without examining the identity of their interests, such a procedure cannot be considered sufficient to justify a negative conclusion as to the identity of the parties.
Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal must re-examine the conditions for lis pendens in light of Article 29(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
(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) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising GmbH and Others v X and Société MGN LIMITED, joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:685.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 May 1998, Drouot assurances SA v Consolidated metallurgical industries (CMI industrial sites), Protea assurance and Groupement d'intérêt économique (GIE) Réunion européenne, C-351/96, ECLI:EU:C:1998:242.